(There should be ZERO leakage mandated in the law, no siphoning off funds for other purposes, with a death penalty clause for any legislator at any level of government introducing any bill to use the funds for any other purpose other than highway infrastructure maintenance or attempting to remove the death penalty clause.)
Why should transport taxes be used only to pay for highway maintenance. Do you think that the police force should be funded by the fines it collects? Do you think the FDA should be funded by food taxes? Money comes in a variety of ways and goes out a variety of ways. If you can get money from transport to pay for other public spending how is that any different from income tax being used to pay for the defense force?
Every tax is regressive because we live in economy.
That sentence makes no sense to me. Progressive tax rates are not regressive, and I don't see what "live in economy" means, nor how it applies here.
The exception might be the poll tax, where every person is assessed the same amount of money and it's set at a level that everybody can afford.
Good luck running your country on what everybody can afford. The 2013 US federal budget is $3.803 trillion. That equates to a little over $10k/year per person, including children. That's a very small set of the population who can really afford that, not even taking into account state or local government expenses.
Remember, when I buy a good that has been shipped by truck, I am benefiting from the damage that truck caused to the highway.
So you should be the one to pay for it. Obviously it's not workable to find the end consumers of transported goods and make them pay, but if we charge the trucks for the road damage in the expectation that they will pass their costs on to their customers we achieve the same thing.
It's more a pollution thing than a safety thing. I've had my car pass inspection (in Texas) with a faulty tire pressure sensor (arguably a safety feature) but when the emissions control quit I had to get that fixed before I could get my sticker.
Bruce probably doesn't want you to trust him implicitly. You should always keep your wits and take actions to make sure you're not being taken advantage of. I read a while ago about a guy who tricked his son into running into a mirror and was flamed for not wanting his son to trust me: but trusting someone can be dangerous. The lesson is to not let yourself get into a position where you're trusting someone else and not protecting yourself.
I'm uninformed and the fact that other people might be more informed than I am is offensive to me. To counteract this, I will yell loudly about how uninformed I am to make sure everybody knows about it.
Chaos is actually a quite well understood phenomenon. The science of statistics can make some quite sensible conclusions from data which, at first glance, appears to be chaotic. Looking at a couple of examples which seem to be against the trend of AGW might make you think that it's not really happening, but if you take a step back and consider the whole picture it becomes more clear. It is indeed falsifiable if the temperature goes beyond the bounds of what is predicted, but that hasn't happened yet.
Shutting down the government is what's best for the country as a whole? I guess that's why they're the ones in power and I'm just here bitching on the internet. I'd be fucking up the country by doing shit.
Obama has been elected twice by using the Affordable Care Act as a major part of his platform. America has spoken, twice. Apparently they'll need to speak at least a third time for you to listen.
I haven't verified any of your numbers, but calculating the liability over the next 75 years sets off my bullshit detector.
In relation to your sig: being told that you're wrong isn't punishing you. You are free to spew crap all day, and I am free to tell you that you're spewing crap.
There'd probably be a huge overhead to doing this kind of thing while awake. Enough to make it completely impractical. Also, evolution doesn't tend toward perfect, it only tends toward "lives long enough to have children."
Ferrari's might be moving toward carbon fibre, but Volvo's haven't really made the transition yet. Outside of the highest performance cars you'll find the same steel as we've been using for 40 years. The increased cost of carbon has never really been worth it. Batteries might be, but that's still to be seen.
Someone made a comment yesterday that all acts now have names to imply the opposite of what they are intended to achieve. The Affordable Care Act fits that quite well, but then again so does the "Obamacare" name.
I'll just drag this off-topic-train right off the rails.
Did I miss the part of the ACA that outlawed private insurance? Why can't you continue with your same insurance provider? If they've chosen to increase their rates, then that's just a private company making a business decision.
Also, $500 makes you drop 2 employees? If they're only costing you $250/month each then they're probably better off without your "employment".
In the case of legitimate child pornography, the computer has ways of shutting the whole thing down.
Before you mod me down consider the difficulty in determining between "legitimate" child pornography and something a random website sends to your pc trying to incriminate you.
1. You don't necessarily need to allow tracking other than for the few minutes it takes for the drone to reach you. As the AC also pointed out, you need to submit at least one location for regular delivery. 2. Yes, I'm not sure why there's any doubt in your mind that people still use paper books. There are stores, like Barnes & Noble who make money primarily by selling paper books to people who want to use them. 3. How is it inefficient? The alternative is for the person who wants the book to travel to the store. Transporting a book is going to use far less resources than transporting a person, simply due to the difference in weight. Even allowing for the inefficiency of air travel the quad-copter is going to come out way ahead. 4. Safety is a concern, but it is a set of solved problems. There is no need to expose anyone to a spinning blade, or any of the other safety issues you are imagining.
Shitting on every new idea you see doesn't make you sound smart. Please stop doing it.
Mt first thought is that you don't have to actually land the drone: you could lower the book on a rope and have it set up that the rope can only support very slightly more than the weight of the book. The person gets the book, pulls down to detach the rope and the drone flies off, having never come within 100 m of you. You'd have some clever hitch on the book so that you wouldn't have 100 m of rope falling on you, unless you tried to grab the rope and pull down the drone, then the rope breaks (at a designed weak point) and the copter flies off to safety. You then get put on a black-list (maybe after a few attempts to rule out accidental snags.) Sure you can probably poke holes in that plan, but like so many things: it's an arms race between people who steal things and people who don't want their things stolen.
My fiance just finished a course in respiratory therapy. In almost every scene she comments that the cannula is upside down, or something equally ridiculous. All I can tell her is now she knows how I feel.
I was thinking a while ago about how it would work in a country with no taxes, where they paid all the expenses with freshly-printed money. It would be almost like a wealth-tax, with the inflation making people's money worth increasingly less. Ultimately you'd have the problem of too many people buying up precious metals, and other non-producing assets just to stave off the inflation, meaning the cost of government would ultimately be paid by the people who had no choice but to use cash.
If barbers charged comparable amounts of money as a cable tv service, then you'd see a lot of people quite going to barbers. I like the idea of watching sports and news from my own couch, but it's just not worth $60/month to me. Obviously some people do think it's worth it, which is why the cable companies are still alive, but that situation is rapidly changing.
Slashdot Mirror
(There should be ZERO leakage mandated in the law, no siphoning off funds for other purposes,
with a death penalty clause for any legislator at any level of government introducing any bill to use the
funds for any other purpose other than highway infrastructure maintenance
or attempting to remove the death penalty clause.)
Why should transport taxes be used only to pay for highway maintenance. Do you think that the police force should be funded by the fines it collects? Do you think the FDA should be funded by food taxes? Money comes in a variety of ways and goes out a variety of ways. If you can get money from transport to pay for other public spending how is that any different from income tax being used to pay for the defense force?
Every tax is regressive because we live in economy.
That sentence makes no sense to me. Progressive tax rates are not regressive, and I don't see what "live in economy" means, nor how it applies here.
The exception might be the poll tax, where every person is assessed the same amount of money and it's set at a level that everybody can afford.
Good luck running your country on what everybody can afford. The 2013 US federal budget is $3.803 trillion. That equates to a little over $10k/year per person, including children. That's a very small set of the population who can really afford that, not even taking into account state or local government expenses.
Remember, when I buy a good that has been shipped by truck, I am benefiting from the damage that truck caused to the highway.
So you should be the one to pay for it. Obviously it's not workable to find the end consumers of transported goods and make them pay, but if we charge the trucks for the road damage in the expectation that they will pass their costs on to their customers we achieve the same thing.
It's more a pollution thing than a safety thing. I've had my car pass inspection (in Texas) with a faulty tire pressure sensor (arguably a safety feature) but when the emissions control quit I had to get that fixed before I could get my sticker.
Bruce probably doesn't want you to trust him implicitly. You should always keep your wits and take actions to make sure you're not being taken advantage of. I read a while ago about a guy who tricked his son into running into a mirror and was flamed for not wanting his son to trust me: but trusting someone can be dangerous. The lesson is to not let yourself get into a position where you're trusting someone else and not protecting yourself.
I'm uninformed and the fact that other people might be more informed than I am is offensive to me. To counteract this, I will yell loudly about how uninformed I am to make sure everybody knows about it.
FTFY.
Cleaned up, yes, but to state that it is in fact, clean? That's stretching it.
But beheading people in shopping malls, restaurants, corporate buildings etc. is fine.
Because of course putting your fingers in your ears and screaming is always the best response to uncertainty.
Chaos is actually a quite well understood phenomenon. The science of statistics can make some quite sensible conclusions from data which, at first glance, appears to be chaotic. Looking at a couple of examples which seem to be against the trend of AGW might make you think that it's not really happening, but if you take a step back and consider the whole picture it becomes more clear. It is indeed falsifiable if the temperature goes beyond the bounds of what is predicted, but that hasn't happened yet.
Shutting down the government is what's best for the country as a whole? I guess that's why they're the ones in power and I'm just here bitching on the internet. I'd be fucking up the country by doing shit.
Obama has been elected twice by using the Affordable Care Act as a major part of his platform. America has spoken, twice. Apparently they'll need to speak at least a third time for you to listen.
I haven't verified any of your numbers, but calculating the liability over the next 75 years sets off my bullshit detector.
In relation to your sig: being told that you're wrong isn't punishing you. You are free to spew crap all day, and I am free to tell you that you're spewing crap.
There'd probably be a huge overhead to doing this kind of thing while awake. Enough to make it completely impractical. Also, evolution doesn't tend toward perfect, it only tends toward "lives long enough to have children."
Ferrari's might be moving toward carbon fibre, but Volvo's haven't really made the transition yet. Outside of the highest performance cars you'll find the same steel as we've been using for 40 years. The increased cost of carbon has never really been worth it. Batteries might be, but that's still to be seen.
Someone made a comment yesterday that all acts now have names to imply the opposite of what they are intended to achieve. The Affordable Care Act fits that quite well, but then again so does the "Obamacare" name.
I'll just drag this off-topic-train right off the rails.
Did I miss the part of the ACA that outlawed private insurance? Why can't you continue with your same insurance provider? If they've chosen to increase their rates, then that's just a private company making a business decision.
Also, $500 makes you drop 2 employees? If they're only costing you $250/month each then they're probably better off without your "employment".
In the case of legitimate child pornography, the computer has ways of shutting the whole thing down.
Before you mod me down consider the difficulty in determining between "legitimate" child pornography and something a random website sends to your pc trying to incriminate you.
Most people who talk shit about the Libya action support the Republicans. I apologize for assuming you were one of those despicable people.
1. You don't necessarily need to allow tracking other than for the few minutes it takes for the drone to reach you. As the AC also pointed out, you need to submit at least one location for regular delivery.
2. Yes, I'm not sure why there's any doubt in your mind that people still use paper books. There are stores, like Barnes & Noble who make money primarily by selling paper books to people who want to use them.
3. How is it inefficient? The alternative is for the person who wants the book to travel to the store. Transporting a book is going to use far less resources than transporting a person, simply due to the difference in weight. Even allowing for the inefficiency of air travel the quad-copter is going to come out way ahead.
4. Safety is a concern, but it is a set of solved problems. There is no need to expose anyone to a spinning blade, or any of the other safety issues you are imagining.
Shitting on every new idea you see doesn't make you sound smart. Please stop doing it.
Mt first thought is that you don't have to actually land the drone: you could lower the book on a rope and have it set up that the rope can only support very slightly more than the weight of the book. The person gets the book, pulls down to detach the rope and the drone flies off, having never come within 100 m of you. You'd have some clever hitch on the book so that you wouldn't have 100 m of rope falling on you, unless you tried to grab the rope and pull down the drone, then the rope breaks (at a designed weak point) and the copter flies off to safety. You then get put on a black-list (maybe after a few attempts to rule out accidental snags.) Sure you can probably poke holes in that plan, but like so many things: it's an arms race between people who steal things and people who don't want their things stolen.
Canberra isn't all that far from Sydney...
My fiance just finished a course in respiratory therapy. In almost every scene she comments that the cannula is upside down, or something equally ridiculous. All I can tell her is now she knows how I feel.
I was thinking a while ago about how it would work in a country with no taxes, where they paid all the expenses with freshly-printed money. It would be almost like a wealth-tax, with the inflation making people's money worth increasingly less. Ultimately you'd have the problem of too many people buying up precious metals, and other non-producing assets just to stave off the inflation, meaning the cost of government would ultimately be paid by the people who had no choice but to use cash.
If barbers charged comparable amounts of money as a cable tv service, then you'd see a lot of people quite going to barbers. I like the idea of watching sports and news from my own couch, but it's just not worth $60/month to me. Obviously some people do think it's worth it, which is why the cable companies are still alive, but that situation is rapidly changing.