Isn't that self-defeating? The whole point is that the vehicle is all electric, otherwise it's just another hybrid. I wouldn't want to lug around the extra weight just on the off chance that I can't make it to a charging station. Adding such a feature would be admitting that there is a problem with the concept.
It's a question inviting people to contradict my theory that it's the labor unions. You even quoted me posing the question.
You appear to have a blind hatred for people that ask questions. Labor unions look like the most likely culprit. I'd consider other options, but I haven't seen any that are more compelling.
As for honesty, blaming Google employees because you can't make you rent payment is a bit dishonest and stinks of blind hatred, does it not?
This is kind of an argument from ignorance.....you are saying you can't think of any other reason, therefore there must be no other reason.
Wait, are question marks no longer an acceptable way of indicating a question?
There is an alternative: people from San Francisco are crazy. Even the homeless people are more crazy than other places. I don't know that can be, but it's true.
Crazy folks don't tend to organize.
More respectfully, these protestors seem to be people who are upset about changes in their community. That is something that happens everywhere. It is spilling out into protests because, hey, protesting is fun, and San Franciscans know it. It's a San Francisco thing to do. Seriously, if you live in the area, join a protest sometime. It's fun.
Stalking people where they live or vandalizing people's transportation is not exactly what I'd call fun. Whoever these people are, they are assholes for doing this. Unions are the brotherhood of assholes, which to me is another sign.
This does happen everywhere, but rarely does it turn into this kind of madness. I get pinged by west coast tech companies frequently and stories like this encourage me to stay far, far away. I'm sure the liberals would be happy about that, but if too many people do the same, those companies will inevitably have to open up shop elsewhere. They're not going to lower salaries or take commuting options away from their employees just because some thugs told them to.
The high income earners will tend to live in areas that are high property value. That means they pay more in property tax through their rent or lease payments.
I'm not sure "evaded" is the term I'd use. I doubt their primary consideration is avoiding tax, I'd bet the average worker wants to avoid a miserable commute. I know when I've had long commutes, I would have loved to ride in a nice coach and not have to drive. It wouldn't have been about gas tax, road tax, tolls, or any of that, it would be purely a quality of life consideration. Driving is stressful. Reading is not.
Maybe the people who both live and work in the city, and have done so for years, who suddenly find they can't afford to live there anymore due to new people who spend 90% of their time outside the city being hired by companies outside the city and provided with free transportation to their rental units.
Sounds like a lucrative tax-base to me. Though I don't support the concept, the city could tax these folks and use that money for low income (or "worker") housing.
IMO, it still makes the most sense that the labor unions would be behind this.
Of course it's about unions. Look who is being targeted. What other possibilities are there? These smart-phone toting "protestors" aren't protesting working conditions overseas, that would be amazingly hypocritical. It can't be the greenies, these ride shares are getting single occupant cars off the roads. It's not going to be any Democrat groups, many of those targeted are going to be liberal Dems given the region of the country. Who is left other than organized labor? Who else would have an axe to grind against these workers?
That's your opinion, which is not shared by everyone. Scum like this murderer have no place in society, and society should have no obligation to provide food, shelter, and clothe them for the rest of their lives. No prison guards should have to fear such people, nor should any community fear them escaping or suffer trying to pay for their keep. The penalty is death. If they murder, they consent to the punishment. There is nothing moral about these people and there's nothing moral about keeping them around.
Cheaper solutions? Your supposed humanity comes with a price tag?
If anything, the European companies that used to supply the lethal injection drugs are culpable in this. They wouldn't sell them to the state, so the state was forced to find another way to carry out the people's will. Did the companies seriously think they could subvert the state's laws? The law exists because the people support it, and will continue to exist until the people no longer support it. It doesn't matter what some drug companies in Europe think.
Sure. Let's pass a law that says it's illegal to disobey the law.
The problem is that there are no penalties. The DOJ under Holder is not going to go after the NSA or any political entities that fall in line with the administration. Holder himself has been caught lying to congress, no penalties. If nothing can hold these people accountable, they're not going to change their ways. In theory, elections would serve this purpose, but the people running are all the same. It's not even like the people weren't paying attention. We had the TEA Parties, we had Occupy.. what changed?
Yes, but your insurance premium will increase an amount equal to several times the cost of a smart phone. That means it's free.
Either that or Obama will pass an executive order demanding that we all buy smartphones or else be penalized/taxed by the IRS. They could already be working on the app portal and cafeteria plans for cell coverage. If you thought healthcare.gov was great, just wait until you see smartphone.gov!
Actually, healthcare is a state right. It is not a right delegated to the federal government by the US Constitution. The only reason the mandate wasn't struck down is because the federal government has the right to impose taxes. The incredible part is, the court allowed the mandate penalty to be a fine during some parts of the trial, but to be a tax during other parts. It was a despicable decision by the court. The feds didn't try to argue interstate commerce because it's rather obvious that a person's health care won't necessarily cross state lines, state sovereignty would have been an easy counterargument to crush an ICC defense.
New Hampshire is not, except in certain cases. Coverage is only required by the following (Title XXI 264:2):
I. Upon receipt of an abstract of the record in case of conviction of any person for one of the following offenses, the director may suspend the license of the person so convicted and the registration certificates of any motor vehicle, trailer, or semi-trailer registered in the name of such person and require the surrender of the registration plates of any such vehicle, unless and until such person gives and thereafter maintains proof of his financial responsibility in the future:
(a) Driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or narcotic drugs;
(b) Failing to stop and report when involved in an accident;
(c) Homicide or assault arising out of the driving of a motor vehicle;
(d) The second time for driving a vehicle at an excessive rate of speed;
(e) The second time for driving a vehicle in a reckless manner and a violation of such other of the provisions of any state law relative to vehicles as the director shall determine.
Note that the director has the ability to demand proof of coverage, but is not forced to do so by law. The state defines minimums for auto insurance, and the insurance companies try to use that to deceive people into thinking coverage is mandatory, but the minimums are only for folks that have run afoul of what I quoted above.
I get the gist of what you're saying, but it could be said of any belief structure. Scientists themselves have been known to stray from rationality. Scientists concocted the atomic bomb, for example. The effects of that make 9/11 look tiny by comparison. Do we lump the atomic scientists in with all those who believe in science just as you have lumped jihadists in with all believers of religion?
The US supports freedom of religion. Unless we want to change that, the public schools should not be trying to suppress religion, either intentionally or otherwise. At the same time, they should be teaching science. How you do one without crossing the other, I don't know. Trying to shun all religion outright, however, is not a reasonable approach. Religion can be destructive and so can science. We can be tolerant towards both, right?
I consider myself to be conservative, but I don't want religious instruction in public schools. I also don't want teachers telling a child they're stupid because their family goes to church. From many of the comments here, it seems like that's what a lot of folks here would like. I agree that the political propaganda is wrong, and I agree that teaching religion in public school would be inappropriate, but we don't need the public schools to wage war against religion. That would be a step too far.
It passed by democratic process only if you're good with the "tyranny of the majority". Not one vote from the opposing party? That's not a beautiful rendition of democracy. Democracy should promote compromise. Even Mitt Romney managed to get votes from both parties (his party was in the minority) for his health care reform when he was governor of Massachusetts.
The Supreme Court had to shit all over the Constitution to allow the law to stand. This was the "it's-a-fee, no it's-a-tax" argument. It reminds me of arguments made to uphold the "legality" of sobriety checkpoints. They were ultimately allowed, but the dissent was quite right that they were a violation of the 4th amendment. These types of legal shenanigans do not do our nation justice.
When the opposing party regains enough control, there's guaranteed to be major changes to the AHA, if not an outright repeal. Is that really what everyone wants for their democracy? Law shouldn't be interpreted or upheld with preference to the party that is in power. Powerful laws like this should be written to pass the test of time, not to just ride out the immediate election cycle.
You generally need insurance to operate a vehicle on a public road, not to get a license.
That aside, you don't need auto insurance in New Hampshire, which is still a state, last I checked. The state calls for its motorists to be responsible. Is responsibility non-existent in the other states? NH has plenty of other similar types of freedoms. No helmet required on motorcycles or bicycles for adults. No seatbelt requirement for adults. The state runs liquor stores right on the highways. Non-felons can open carry, no permit required. Despite all this, the state continues to be a fine place to live. No mass-hysteria.
The government doesn't exist to run people's lives for them, or to protect them from themselves. To me, the right to make bad decisions is a hallmark of freedom.
Some people believe in religion. Some people do not. Why do you feel so strongly about it that you have to condemn a significant portion of the population by belittling their beliefs? This reeks of the grand double standard. Be tolerant, but not of things you don't agree with. Schools aren't supposed to be indoctrination centers.
The responses that topics like this receive here are really disappointing. It doesn't speak well of the technology crowd.
We already have the 4th amendment. What we need are judges that will uphold the laws we already have and not subvert them to serve the government's own interests. More laws won't fix this mess.
It feels like a reverse of Napster. Consumers argued that it wasn't theft and that they were simply sharing. Now the corporations are having their turn. It's not theft, it's merely licensing.
It's actually a lot like politics. Policy swings left, policy swings right. All the while, someone is getting screwed.
That's "Boston Strong" - wasting massive amounts of money to get no results, when simply not even trying would have allowed normal people to accomplish the goal immediately. And then being smug about it. There's a reason nothing of any worth comes out of Boston.
While I have no love for the Commonwealth, I think you're way off here. The reason a citizen found flash-bang (the kid) hiding in the boat was because the police had driven him into hiding. The other brother was killed while trying to escape the police. If not for the actions taken, those two might still be out and about planning who knows what.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't that self-defeating? The whole point is that the vehicle is all electric, otherwise it's just another hybrid. I wouldn't want to lug around the extra weight just on the off chance that I can't make it to a charging station. Adding such a feature would be admitting that there is a problem with the concept.
News you don't like is still news.
Is that the new Fox News motto?
It's a question inviting people to contradict my theory that it's the labor unions. You even quoted me posing the question.
You appear to have a blind hatred for people that ask questions. Labor unions look like the most likely culprit. I'd consider other options, but I haven't seen any that are more compelling.
As for honesty, blaming Google employees because you can't make you rent payment is a bit dishonest and stinks of blind hatred, does it not?
(That's a question.)
This is kind of an argument from ignorance.....you are saying you can't think of any other reason, therefore there must be no other reason.
Wait, are question marks no longer an acceptable way of indicating a question?
There is an alternative: people from San Francisco are crazy. Even the homeless people are more crazy than other places. I don't know that can be, but it's true.
Crazy folks don't tend to organize.
More respectfully, these protestors seem to be people who are upset about changes in their community. That is something that happens everywhere. It is spilling out into protests because, hey, protesting is fun, and San Franciscans know it. It's a San Francisco thing to do. Seriously, if you live in the area, join a protest sometime. It's fun.
Stalking people where they live or vandalizing people's transportation is not exactly what I'd call fun. Whoever these people are, they are assholes for doing this. Unions are the brotherhood of assholes, which to me is another sign.
This does happen everywhere, but rarely does it turn into this kind of madness. I get pinged by west coast tech companies frequently and stories like this encourage me to stay far, far away. I'm sure the liberals would be happy about that, but if too many people do the same, those companies will inevitably have to open up shop elsewhere. They're not going to lower salaries or take commuting options away from their employees just because some thugs told them to.
Sure, because ideological organizations would never use a pretext.
The high income earners will tend to live in areas that are high property value. That means they pay more in property tax through their rent or lease payments.
I'm not sure "evaded" is the term I'd use. I doubt their primary consideration is avoiding tax, I'd bet the average worker wants to avoid a miserable commute. I know when I've had long commutes, I would have loved to ride in a nice coach and not have to drive. It wouldn't have been about gas tax, road tax, tolls, or any of that, it would be purely a quality of life consideration. Driving is stressful. Reading is not.
Maybe the people who both live and work in the city, and have done so for years, who suddenly find they can't afford to live there anymore due to new people who spend 90% of their time outside the city being hired by companies outside the city and provided with free transportation to their rental units.
Sounds like a lucrative tax-base to me. Though I don't support the concept, the city could tax these folks and use that money for low income (or "worker") housing.
IMO, it still makes the most sense that the labor unions would be behind this.
Of course it's about unions. Look who is being targeted. What other possibilities are there? These smart-phone toting "protestors" aren't protesting working conditions overseas, that would be amazingly hypocritical. It can't be the greenies, these ride shares are getting single occupant cars off the roads. It's not going to be any Democrat groups, many of those targeted are going to be liberal Dems given the region of the country. Who is left other than organized labor? Who else would have an axe to grind against these workers?
That's your opinion, which is not shared by everyone. Scum like this murderer have no place in society, and society should have no obligation to provide food, shelter, and clothe them for the rest of their lives. No prison guards should have to fear such people, nor should any community fear them escaping or suffer trying to pay for their keep. The penalty is death. If they murder, they consent to the punishment. There is nothing moral about these people and there's nothing moral about keeping them around.
Cheaper solutions? Your supposed humanity comes with a price tag?
If anything, the European companies that used to supply the lethal injection drugs are culpable in this. They wouldn't sell them to the state, so the state was forced to find another way to carry out the people's will. Did the companies seriously think they could subvert the state's laws? The law exists because the people support it, and will continue to exist until the people no longer support it. It doesn't matter what some drug companies in Europe think.
What kind of sick society experiments on helpless prisoners?
Would you rather test an intentionally lethal drug cocktail on law abiding people?
We're more humane now that he's gone.
Perhaps he was studying it to learn best how to kill it. Know your enemy.
Sure. Let's pass a law that says it's illegal to disobey the law.
The problem is that there are no penalties. The DOJ under Holder is not going to go after the NSA or any political entities that fall in line with the administration. Holder himself has been caught lying to congress, no penalties. If nothing can hold these people accountable, they're not going to change their ways. In theory, elections would serve this purpose, but the people running are all the same. It's not even like the people weren't paying attention. We had the TEA Parties, we had Occupy.. what changed?
I really don't know where we go from here.
Not only that, but most of the mass killings lately have been in "gun free zones". Clearly the gun free zones do not protect life or liberty.
Yes, but your insurance premium will increase an amount equal to several times the cost of a smart phone. That means it's free.
Either that or Obama will pass an executive order demanding that we all buy smartphones or else be penalized/taxed by the IRS. They could already be working on the app portal and cafeteria plans for cell coverage. If you thought healthcare.gov was great, just wait until you see smartphone.gov!
Actually, healthcare is a state right. It is not a right delegated to the federal government by the US Constitution. The only reason the mandate wasn't struck down is because the federal government has the right to impose taxes. The incredible part is, the court allowed the mandate penalty to be a fine during some parts of the trial, but to be a tax during other parts. It was a despicable decision by the court. The feds didn't try to argue interstate commerce because it's rather obvious that a person's health care won't necessarily cross state lines, state sovereignty would have been an easy counterargument to crush an ICC defense.
New Hampshire is not, except in certain cases. Coverage is only required by the following (Title XXI 264:2):
I. Upon receipt of an abstract of the record in case of conviction of any person for one of the following offenses, the director may suspend the license of the person so convicted and the registration certificates of any motor vehicle, trailer, or semi-trailer registered in the name of such person and require the surrender of the registration plates of any such vehicle, unless and until such person gives and thereafter maintains proof of his financial responsibility in the future:
(a) Driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or narcotic drugs;
(b) Failing to stop and report when involved in an accident;
(c) Homicide or assault arising out of the driving of a motor vehicle;
(d) The second time for driving a vehicle at an excessive rate of speed;
(e) The second time for driving a vehicle in a reckless manner and a violation of such other of the provisions of any state law relative to vehicles as the director shall determine.
Note that the director has the ability to demand proof of coverage, but is not forced to do so by law. The state defines minimums for auto insurance, and the insurance companies try to use that to deceive people into thinking coverage is mandatory, but the minimums are only for folks that have run afoul of what I quoted above.
I looked for any recent changes in the law, but nothing jumped out at me. The text I quoted is directly from the state:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-XXI-264.htm
Motorists may be required to have coverage by the terms of their auto loan, but that's between them and their bank. It's not a matter of law.
If Wikipedia is correct, NH stands alone. I'm surprised at that. It's a non-issue for those of us that live here.
I get the gist of what you're saying, but it could be said of any belief structure. Scientists themselves have been known to stray from rationality. Scientists concocted the atomic bomb, for example. The effects of that make 9/11 look tiny by comparison. Do we lump the atomic scientists in with all those who believe in science just as you have lumped jihadists in with all believers of religion?
The US supports freedom of religion. Unless we want to change that, the public schools should not be trying to suppress religion, either intentionally or otherwise. At the same time, they should be teaching science. How you do one without crossing the other, I don't know. Trying to shun all religion outright, however, is not a reasonable approach. Religion can be destructive and so can science. We can be tolerant towards both, right?
I consider myself to be conservative, but I don't want religious instruction in public schools. I also don't want teachers telling a child they're stupid because their family goes to church. From many of the comments here, it seems like that's what a lot of folks here would like. I agree that the political propaganda is wrong, and I agree that teaching religion in public school would be inappropriate, but we don't need the public schools to wage war against religion. That would be a step too far.
Wow, and that qualifies as flamebait? Good grief. So laws should be contorted to fit the whims of the ruling party? Seriously?
It passed by democratic process only if you're good with the "tyranny of the majority". Not one vote from the opposing party? That's not a beautiful rendition of democracy. Democracy should promote compromise. Even Mitt Romney managed to get votes from both parties (his party was in the minority) for his health care reform when he was governor of Massachusetts.
The Supreme Court had to shit all over the Constitution to allow the law to stand. This was the "it's-a-fee, no it's-a-tax" argument. It reminds me of arguments made to uphold the "legality" of sobriety checkpoints. They were ultimately allowed, but the dissent was quite right that they were a violation of the 4th amendment. These types of legal shenanigans do not do our nation justice.
When the opposing party regains enough control, there's guaranteed to be major changes to the AHA, if not an outright repeal. Is that really what everyone wants for their democracy? Law shouldn't be interpreted or upheld with preference to the party that is in power. Powerful laws like this should be written to pass the test of time, not to just ride out the immediate election cycle.
You generally need insurance to operate a vehicle on a public road, not to get a license.
That aside, you don't need auto insurance in New Hampshire, which is still a state, last I checked. The state calls for its motorists to be responsible. Is responsibility non-existent in the other states? NH has plenty of other similar types of freedoms. No helmet required on motorcycles or bicycles for adults. No seatbelt requirement for adults. The state runs liquor stores right on the highways. Non-felons can open carry, no permit required. Despite all this, the state continues to be a fine place to live. No mass-hysteria.
The government doesn't exist to run people's lives for them, or to protect them from themselves. To me, the right to make bad decisions is a hallmark of freedom.
Some people believe in religion. Some people do not. Why do you feel so strongly about it that you have to condemn a significant portion of the population by belittling their beliefs? This reeks of the grand double standard. Be tolerant, but not of things you don't agree with. Schools aren't supposed to be indoctrination centers.
The responses that topics like this receive here are really disappointing. It doesn't speak well of the technology crowd.
We already have the 4th amendment. What we need are judges that will uphold the laws we already have and not subvert them to serve the government's own interests. More laws won't fix this mess.
It feels like a reverse of Napster. Consumers argued that it wasn't theft and that they were simply sharing. Now the corporations are having their turn. It's not theft, it's merely licensing.
It's actually a lot like politics. Policy swings left, policy swings right. All the while, someone is getting screwed.
That's "Boston Strong" - wasting massive amounts of money to get no results, when simply not even trying would have allowed normal people to accomplish the goal immediately. And then being smug about it. There's a reason nothing of any worth comes out of Boston.
While I have no love for the Commonwealth, I think you're way off here. The reason a citizen found flash-bang (the kid) hiding in the boat was because the police had driven him into hiding. The other brother was killed while trying to escape the police. If not for the actions taken, those two might still be out and about planning who knows what.