You know, Europe's government is starting to sound more and more like the USA's to me?
In this case, I'm referring to when a special interest(IE the ones trying to push punitive punishments for minor copyright infringers), failing to get what they want on the state level, going to the federal level to change it.
Happening right now with the anti-gay marriage* types in California. Since the ruling they've started pushing for federal law, or a state constitutional amendment banning it(only way to overrule a supreme court).
It's only a matter of time before the powers of individual nations start being subsumed over the larger one. Oh, and individual's rights are trashed one way or another. The problem with a national government of the sort of the EU is it becomes far more difficult for the people to affect things. I mean, at least the US has the advantage that we all more or less speak the same language.
I noticed another poster lamenting the representative democracy we have vs direct democracy. Personally, I think that in large systems a representative form is generally best. The rest of us don't have the time to go reading through the various spending bills and such. Still - at this point we COULD afford, rather easily, to have all 'major' legislation end up before the people. I'm talking about things like changes to common law(like gay marriage), criminal law(murder, theft, etc), overall budget(what the representatives are allowed to spend this year). The representatives worry about regulation, splitting up the budget they're authorized, and negotiating changes to the law to be put before the people next election.
*Don't want to touch this with a ten foot pole, but my general position is that the.gov shouldn't be in the marriage business at all. Civil Unions backed up by proper contract law, and if you want to call yourself married, find a priest, rabbi, mullah, witch, druid, or whatever to perform the ceremony.
Always have, not to mention things like waste reprocessing.
many people consider fission reactors, especially breeders, to be insanely dangerous.
Having passed statistics, I don't. Per kwh it has the lowest death rate going. Coal, even hydro has higher.
Until we actually start dealing with reactor waste in other than an extremely temporary and ad hoc manner
There's many options, it's just that nuclear waste is so containable that we can afford to drag our heels. My solution is breeder reactors(orders of magnitude more power for a given amount of fuel, and therefore waste) and reprocessing. Eventually we'll be able to deploy such technologies as neutron bombardment, or a technique to plant it into a subduction zone. In any case, after reprocessing the remaining waste is hot for a much shorter period of time.
Also, I'd need to get the government to stop providing them with free liability coverage
You mean the liability coverage not even oil companies 'need', that the government has never paid out on, and doesn't come into play until 9.5 billion in private payouts?
That would increase to 20 billion if we built another 100 plants?
In my honest opinion - the government would declare a disaster area for any other industry that caused such a mess. Create a superfund, bailing out anybody who created a large contamination(without necessarily bankrupting the company), far before $1 Billion, much less 10.
Thus, I consider it very cheap insurance. After all, the first dollar of coverage is the most expensive - the last is the cheapest. It's part of the reason why a $100k capped liability policy isn't that much cheaper than a $1M policy. The last $900k actually costs less than the first $100k.
It's certainly not much of a subsidy. If anything, it'd be neat if the US Government required other companies handling potentially dangerous stuff was upheld to the same standard - think oil companies, fertilizer plants, sugar mills*, pesticide factories, etc...
There are exceptions for even this. My grandmother, before she passed away, was on $20/month dialup. Broadband in the area the last time I visited: $14/month for their cheapest package(512k).
Also AVG are not slimly, the spyware/trojan/malware site operators are
However, I'd argue it's the equivalent of using a flamethrower to take out a wasp's nest - the amount of collateral damage to non-malware sites due to the spurious pulls is excessive, there are cleaner methods available.
We have plenty of methods to create electricity in an efficient manner in a nice stationary facility(but to heavy for effective mobility).
Nuclear reactors, Solar(thermal?), wind, hydro(inc tidal), even the much maligned coal plant* can efficiently power many electrical cars cleaner than current generation gasoline engines.
While electricity isn't actually all that cheaper than gasoline in raw energy (multiply your cost per kwh by 33.7 to get the cost of the equivalent energy in a gallon of gasoline**), the fact that a conventional engine is doing excelling to break 30% efficiency while battery charging and motor usage can easily be three times as efficient makes up ground.
I'd have to redo the figures, but last time I had checked, battery wear, figured as a function of per mile, cost more than gasoline. Still, that was a while ago when gasoline was quite a bit more expensive, and meanwhile the cost of batteries have decreased a bit and gained lifespan.
Sure, we'd need to build more plants to provide the power. But that's doable. Heck, I'm sure many people would be happy for the jobs.
*I'm one of the primary malignerers;) **Somewhat approximate; different blends vary a bit. I used the 115k btu/gallon figure. E10, for example, has ~97% the energy.
I heard on the radio today that the demand for gasoline in the USA has dropped by 2% over last year.
It's happening. It took a bit to find how elastic our demand for gasoline is, but we've hit it.
I see gasoline still going to go up for the next few years, mostly because it takes time to rework fleets - Hybrids and small cars are selling like hotcakes, but the average lifespan for a car is 5-10 years. We're about 2-3 years from when hybrids were mostly special purpose, sold for government fleets or for (as coined on another board) the smug factor.
Still, there's going to be substantial upward pressure in the form of China and India industrializing and developing a middle class capable of affording vehicles - like the Tata. The vehicles can sipp fuel like a moped and the sheer fact that there's more than 10X of them will swamp anything Americans, Europeans, Russians can do in the form of near-term conservation.
Darn it, can't anybody invent a battery that stores twice as much power at half the cost with a decent lifespan?;)
the vendor changes according to how *useful* the service is
Or, more accurately they charge what they can get away with to maximize profits before people start shifting to less suitable substitutes. In this case things like voice mail(or even old style answering machines), actual email, or just don't text.
Texting just shows that the cell phone service market is not very competitive.
Or, at least at the moment, that people don't choose their service providers on the basis of per-text charges. As others have noted, those that text a lot generally go for unlimited plans.
I had a choice of a whole two of the cell companies given my location(verizon and alltel), and I'm old-gen, I don't text or surf. I bought a phone on the basis of reception, battery life, and bluetooth. The bluetooth headset helps reception because there's only a few good reception spots in my house/area. Being able to stash the phone in one helps. I have the second cheapest national plan they offer(I do travel semi-frequently). I don't even remember what the fees for data or text messages are - because I don't do that. Though I am considering getting a data plan now - my cell can act as a modem using bluetooth with my new computer. Then again, I have high speed internet at home through DSL that'd kick the data rate I could push through my one to two bar signal zone, have high speed internet at work, and most hotels/motels today offer free internet. The biggest area for me to use my computer would be in the airports - and I'm not in them enough. Still cheaper than the $10-20 my local hub wants for the hour or two layover I generally have, but I just do without at the moment. I looked at it mostly in the 'wouldn't this be neat' fashion.
Back on text messaging - you could say the same thing for long distance rates, pay phones, per minute charge rates for going over your monthly minutes.
In fact, it seems that phone companies like doing the same thing as banks - offer plans/accounts with decent terms and rates - yet charge fees/penalties like crazy for any deviations.
You know, I considered putting something like this in there, as I don't take a shot unless I'm sure. I chose to give him the benefit of the doubt that he's been hunting for years, and the occasional non-optimal shot occurred due to sheer chance.
Of course, I've only gone deer hunting once, and got one deer - dead where it stood, basically. The deer I hit with my car this spring(jumped out of the ditch from behind some brush, I couldn't stop), did suffer a bit until I put him down. That made me a little sad. But I approached it from a 'what's done is done' angle and that I had a fatally injured deer in the ditch near my car - so I shot it in the head.
That'd work fine with the gore and such, but you have to remember it's been a while since I was a kid. It was other aspects of horror films that my parents objected to - they apparently gave me nightmares. Even a PG film rated one edited for TV - don't ask me why(I'm fine now).
Of course - by your standard I should be fine now, I've butchered deer myself. Of course, I stopped having that issue in my late teens, before I went hunting(city kid, though midwestern).
Most people don't realize this, but the whole movie rating system is contractual in nature.
Though the cynics like me will point out that it was done to AVOID stuff like this where the government tries to make it mandatory. Laws and court battles are expensive. Criminal charges are outright crazy, but look at alcohol laws - they didn't want a situation where allowing a minor to see an R rated movie would be a felony.
So they regulate themselves a bit. Besides which, I think that most stores do the same thing with 'adult' video games, so why the big deal?
Then again, we STILL have people who think that prohibition is a good thing, who think that violent video games create violent kids*. Heck, kinda like the hoopla about dungeons & dragons back in the day.
Of course, my parents generally didn't care about the rating system. I was allowed to rent whatever I liked from the rental store, to the point of getting a permission slip from my parents to allow me to rent R rated movies as a young teen. I just had a verbal warning to not get anything from the horror section. Wasn't interested in them anyways.
My opinion, formed from my experiences and those of my friends is that adults under estimate what kids can handle, and over estimate any 'damages'. A kid coming upon a body IRL is probably going to need some counseling. A body on the boob tube isn't the same thing. Especially in a movie, as long as the parent has first verified that the kid knows it's a piece of fiction.
*Statistics, if anything, point out the opposite when it comes to real violence, of the sort that garners criminal charges.
I did. Noticed it myself upon rereading. I have a problem with pulling up the wrong words sometimes. Normally I catch it, but here on/. I don't give it the necessary half hour or so to really catch stuff before posting.
While the Empire State building wouldn't be made the way it was today, I feel that a city doesn't need to be 100% modern, indeed, some older buildings(properly maintained) helps with culture. Venice can be a bastion, a tourist stop, etc...
It is historically interesting, but the architecture is a reflection of that time - and not reflective of the methods and applications of modern architecture.
While the Empire State building wouldn't be made the way it was today, I feel that a city
I suppose if somebody wants to spend boatloads of money to restore something to a less-than-modern functional state, so tourists can cycle through and buy snacks and souvenirs - then happy investing.
That's essentially what the city is today - minus the bicycling. What I'm proposing is getting rid of the sense of decay. While you're at it, sure, you should be able to figure out ways to modernize here and there - such as installing electricity. But subtly.
But I think it makes more sense to just recreate some of the architecture in a museum somewhere.
Venice, as is, is essentially a big museum. Note - I'm talking the central portion, which a person can easily walk around in a day. I'd generally restore it to the 1700's period. Plus electricity, of course. It just felt so sad, because you get the feeling it's falling apart.
Why not recreate thatched huts and barren, open countryside?
Because Venice didn't orginate as thatched huts, much less open countryside? It was one of the earliest land claims- a city on water, more or less unique in the world.
THAT'S why I favor more turning Venice(at least the core tourist district) into a museum.
Think of a historical building society - written large. If we're going to preserve history, we should preserve it intact, in a fashion that can be appreciated by others - and YES, that includes maintenance and repair.
Mostly true, but on the other hand, I've dealt with several programs that REQUIRE an older version of Java to operate. Mostly because, whether out of lazyness or design, they utilized several functions in ways that were later disabled for security. I mean, all the functions that enabled email worms and such with microsoft office applications weren't put there deliberately for the pleasure of worm writers - they were put there to allow various people using office to automate procedures.
Arguably - look at programs created back during the days of 3.11, 95-98. Because there was no file security, many programs assume that they have write access everywhere - and many would do things like try to write temporary and config files to places like it's own install directory.
Today - a standard user doesn't have write access there so many of the programs will fail unless run as an administrator today.
Well, it sounds like you have more bidding experience than I do. Currently I refuse to do business with Ebay, for example, due to some of their ethics practices.
Still, I view it in terms of game theory and statistics.
For example, I think that selling popular concert tickets(you know, the 'sold out in 5 minute' types) at dutch auction would be a good idea. You put your bid in, knowing that you won't be screwed, in that you'll end up paying the same as everybody else. At the same time, you're encouraged to bid as high as you can stand - in order to make sure you get the tickets. Incidentally, especially if you keep 1-2% of tickets back for sale on-site, this will also take care of most scalping problems.
Generally speaking - I view it as a contest. The bidders want to get the item for as cheap as possible, the seller wants to sell it for as much as possible. There are many ways to do this, from the fast talking cattle auction to a days long silent written bid auction for something like a collection of artwork.
Finally, keep this in mind: An item is only worth what you can get somebody to pay for it.
I put item X up for auction. I want at least $20 for it. If I put a minimum bid on it I get one guy who puts $20 down on it. Or I set a $20 reserve, bidders 1-10, smelling a deal start bidding, it quickly exceeds $20, but since 1-10 were already looking at it, at least some have their competitive side awake and are looking for a 'win'. Next thing you know it sells for $50.
At least to me, your minimum/starting bid is the same as what you said.
I think that reserve amounts are set in the hope of getting a 'bidding war' started, get more people interested and bidding, and therefore end up running the price above what the item would have sold for with a minimum bid.
I'm somewhat the same as you, it seems. I can appreciate looking at the weapons that are hundreds of years old - such as revolutionary war muskets, swords from the medieval period, and such.
In most cases they're heavily used, but still intact, examples of the time. They're in museums, and available if anybody wants to do a meteorological analysis. Same with the Constitution of the USA, articles of confederation, declaration of independence, magna carta, etc...
Still, I personally don't feel the need to own an original. Personally, I'd rather own a copy of the revolutionary war musket - in all it's operational, get it out and play with it(because it's replaceable), glory.
To be honest - when I visited Venice, I was disappointed. I saw a city past it's time, degrading. Most of the first floors are unusable any more, you travel by footpath rather than boat. Much of the amazing architecture is under water, a lot of it destroyed.
I'd advocate a massive restoration project - the lifting of Venice, and the restoration of it's former glory.
Maybe we shouldn't rebuild the Colosseum at this point - but build a new one next to it.
While I'd tend to change a few bits of Heinlein's list, I DO agree with it over all. And yes, that line did have an effect on me as a child.
I think that we've lost track of things when we get students unwilling to dissect a dead frog or rat*.
I've proposed having a 'life skills' class in school. Some of the stuff I listed can be folded into other classes. Math doesn't and shouldn't be theory and numbers only. Real problems should be in there, might as well stick the budgeting into it. Sex Ed and proper diet fits into health class. Etc... Other stuff goes into the 'catch all'.
*Now, I did have a problem with the pig fetus dissection in high school - specifically, I was driven from the room by the smell within seconds of them opening the lid. Turns out I'm allergic to that preservative. Oops... Still, I've butchered deer before.
Again, in a states where food and rent(housing) isn't taxed, is a sales tax still regressive?
I say no. A family making 10X the amount of the 'poor' family likely doesn't spend 10X as much on food, but on other things that ARE taxed.
But then, I'm unlikely to convince you, just as I personally prefer more or less flat taxes. Or use taxes - where you're actually paying for the services you use.
Yes, I'd object to a heavily regressive tax, but sales tax isn't really all that regressive. I believe that, on average, it's flat. The overall situation starts getting really progressive when you include income and real estate taxes into the mix.
The problem with your statement is that, lacking any presence in NY, NY doesn't have any legal right to force amazon to collect sales tax for them.
It's different if they DO have a presence, which is where this conflict comes in.
And to simply try to ban Amazon from selling to NY residents if they DON'T comply with your sales tax idea is getting into interstate commerce - which they're not allowed to do. That's the feds domain.
Except, to use your butter example, the poor person's buying cheap store brand margarine at $.20/stick, while the rich guy is buying Organic hand-churned at $2/stick.
So it all evens out, and is flat - with modifications caused by the individual spending habits of the person.
Of course there is a reason, and it is that a person with a lot of income spends a lower percentage of that income on consumption.
That is NOT guarenteed by any means. There are people out there that make half of what I do and save money, there are people who earn ten times what I do and spend every cent of it and then some.
Me, I save 10-20% of my income. In my state, food from a grocery store isn't subject to sales tax.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, Europe's government is starting to sound more and more like the USA's to me?
In this case, I'm referring to when a special interest(IE the ones trying to push punitive punishments for minor copyright infringers), failing to get what they want on the state level, going to the federal level to change it.
Happening right now with the anti-gay marriage* types in California. Since the ruling they've started pushing for federal law, or a state constitutional amendment banning it(only way to overrule a supreme court).
It's only a matter of time before the powers of individual nations start being subsumed over the larger one. Oh, and individual's rights are trashed one way or another. The problem with a national government of the sort of the EU is it becomes far more difficult for the people to affect things. I mean, at least the US has the advantage that we all more or less speak the same language.
I noticed another poster lamenting the representative democracy we have vs direct democracy. Personally, I think that in large systems a representative form is generally best. The rest of us don't have the time to go reading through the various spending bills and such. Still - at this point we COULD afford, rather easily, to have all 'major' legislation end up before the people. I'm talking about things like changes to common law(like gay marriage), criminal law(murder, theft, etc), overall budget(what the representatives are allowed to spend this year). The representatives worry about regulation, splitting up the budget they're authorized, and negotiating changes to the law to be put before the people next election.
*Don't want to touch this with a ten foot pole, but my general position is that the .gov shouldn't be in the marriage business at all. Civil Unions backed up by proper contract law, and if you want to call yourself married, find a priest, rabbi, mullah, witch, druid, or whatever to perform the ceremony.
you'd better be including breeder reactors,
Always have, not to mention things like waste reprocessing.
many people consider fission reactors, especially breeders, to be insanely dangerous.
Having passed statistics, I don't. Per kwh it has the lowest death rate going. Coal, even hydro has higher.
Until we actually start dealing with reactor waste in other than an extremely temporary and ad hoc manner
There's many options, it's just that nuclear waste is so containable that we can afford to drag our heels. My solution is breeder reactors(orders of magnitude more power for a given amount of fuel, and therefore waste) and reprocessing. Eventually we'll be able to deploy such technologies as neutron bombardment, or a technique to plant it into a subduction zone. In any case, after reprocessing the remaining waste is hot for a much shorter period of time.
Also, I'd need to get the government to stop providing them with free liability coverage
You mean the liability coverage not even oil companies 'need', that the government has never paid out on, and doesn't come into play until 9.5 billion in private payouts?
That would increase to 20 billion if we built another 100 plants?
In my honest opinion - the government would declare a disaster area for any other industry that caused such a mess. Create a superfund, bailing out anybody who created a large contamination(without necessarily bankrupting the company), far before $1 Billion, much less 10.
Thus, I consider it very cheap insurance. After all, the first dollar of coverage is the most expensive - the last is the cheapest. It's part of the reason why a $100k capped liability policy isn't that much cheaper than a $1M policy. The last $900k actually costs less than the first $100k.
It's certainly not much of a subsidy. If anything, it'd be neat if the US Government required other companies handling potentially dangerous stuff was upheld to the same standard - think oil companies, fertilizer plants, sugar mills*, pesticide factories, etc...
*They blow up occasionially
Awesome - yes, but when it's attached to your or your neighbor's house?
Like any healthy man, I'm a closet pyromaniac, but it's well controlled - I do my burning away from stuff I don't want to see burned.
There are exceptions for even this. My grandmother, before she passed away, was on $20/month dialup. Broadband in the area the last time I visited: $14/month for their cheapest package(512k).
She didn't want to change.
Also AVG are not slimly, the spyware/trojan/malware site operators are
However, I'd argue it's the equivalent of using a flamethrower to take out a wasp's nest - the amount of collateral damage to non-malware sites due to the spurious pulls is excessive, there are cleaner methods available.
What's the SOURCE of the energy?
We have plenty of methods to create electricity in an efficient manner in a nice stationary facility(but to heavy for effective mobility).
Nuclear reactors, Solar(thermal?), wind, hydro(inc tidal), even the much maligned coal plant* can efficiently power many electrical cars cleaner than current generation gasoline engines.
While electricity isn't actually all that cheaper than gasoline in raw energy (multiply your cost per kwh by 33.7 to get the cost of the equivalent energy in a gallon of gasoline**), the fact that a conventional engine is doing excelling to break 30% efficiency while battery charging and motor usage can easily be three times as efficient makes up ground.
I'd have to redo the figures, but last time I had checked, battery wear, figured as a function of per mile, cost more than gasoline. Still, that was a while ago when gasoline was quite a bit more expensive, and meanwhile the cost of batteries have decreased a bit and gained lifespan.
Sure, we'd need to build more plants to provide the power. But that's doable. Heck, I'm sure many people would be happy for the jobs.
*I'm one of the primary malignerers ;)
**Somewhat approximate; different blends vary a bit. I used the 115k btu/gallon figure. E10, for example, has ~97% the energy.
I heard on the radio today that the demand for gasoline in the USA has dropped by 2% over last year.
It's happening. It took a bit to find how elastic our demand for gasoline is, but we've hit it.
I see gasoline still going to go up for the next few years, mostly because it takes time to rework fleets - Hybrids and small cars are selling like hotcakes, but the average lifespan for a car is 5-10 years. We're about 2-3 years from when hybrids were mostly special purpose, sold for government fleets or for (as coined on another board) the smug factor.
Still, there's going to be substantial upward pressure in the form of China and India industrializing and developing a middle class capable of affording vehicles - like the Tata. The vehicles can sipp fuel like a moped and the sheer fact that there's more than 10X of them will swamp anything Americans, Europeans, Russians can do in the form of near-term conservation.
Darn it, can't anybody invent a battery that stores twice as much power at half the cost with a decent lifespan? ;)
the vendor changes according to how *useful* the service is
Or, more accurately they charge what they can get away with to maximize profits before people start shifting to less suitable substitutes. In this case things like voice mail(or even old style answering machines), actual email, or just don't text.
Texting just shows that the cell phone service market is not very competitive.
Or, at least at the moment, that people don't choose their service providers on the basis of per-text charges. As others have noted, those that text a lot generally go for unlimited plans.
I had a choice of a whole two of the cell companies given my location(verizon and alltel), and I'm old-gen, I don't text or surf. I bought a phone on the basis of reception, battery life, and bluetooth. The bluetooth headset helps reception because there's only a few good reception spots in my house/area. Being able to stash the phone in one helps. I have the second cheapest national plan they offer(I do travel semi-frequently). I don't even remember what the fees for data or text messages are - because I don't do that. Though I am considering getting a data plan now - my cell can act as a modem using bluetooth with my new computer. Then again, I have high speed internet at home through DSL that'd kick the data rate I could push through my one to two bar signal zone, have high speed internet at work, and most hotels/motels today offer free internet. The biggest area for me to use my computer would be in the airports - and I'm not in them enough. Still cheaper than the $10-20 my local hub wants for the hour or two layover I generally have, but I just do without at the moment. I looked at it mostly in the 'wouldn't this be neat' fashion.
Back on text messaging - you could say the same thing for long distance rates, pay phones, per minute charge rates for going over your monthly minutes.
In fact, it seems that phone companies like doing the same thing as banks - offer plans/accounts with decent terms and rates - yet charge fees/penalties like crazy for any deviations.
You know, I considered putting something like this in there, as I don't take a shot unless I'm sure. I chose to give him the benefit of the doubt that he's been hunting for years, and the occasional non-optimal shot occurred due to sheer chance.
Of course, I've only gone deer hunting once, and got one deer - dead where it stood, basically. The deer I hit with my car this spring(jumped out of the ditch from behind some brush, I couldn't stop), did suffer a bit until I put him down. That made me a little sad. But I approached it from a 'what's done is done' angle and that I had a fatally injured deer in the ditch near my car - so I shot it in the head.
That'd work fine with the gore and such, but you have to remember it's been a while since I was a kid. It was other aspects of horror films that my parents objected to - they apparently gave me nightmares. Even a PG film rated one edited for TV - don't ask me why(I'm fine now).
Of course - by your standard I should be fine now, I've butchered deer myself. Of course, I stopped having that issue in my late teens, before I went hunting(city kid, though midwestern).
Most people don't realize this, but the whole movie rating system is contractual in nature.
Though the cynics like me will point out that it was done to AVOID stuff like this where the government tries to make it mandatory. Laws and court battles are expensive. Criminal charges are outright crazy, but look at alcohol laws - they didn't want a situation where allowing a minor to see an R rated movie would be a felony.
So they regulate themselves a bit. Besides which, I think that most stores do the same thing with 'adult' video games, so why the big deal?
Then again, we STILL have people who think that prohibition is a good thing, who think that violent video games create violent kids*. Heck, kinda like the hoopla about dungeons & dragons back in the day.
Of course, my parents generally didn't care about the rating system. I was allowed to rent whatever I liked from the rental store, to the point of getting a permission slip from my parents to allow me to rent R rated movies as a young teen. I just had a verbal warning to not get anything from the horror section. Wasn't interested in them anyways.
My opinion, formed from my experiences and those of my friends is that adults under estimate what kids can handle, and over estimate any 'damages'. A kid coming upon a body IRL is probably going to need some counseling. A body on the boob tube isn't the same thing. Especially in a movie, as long as the parent has first verified that the kid knows it's a piece of fiction.
*Statistics, if anything, point out the opposite when it comes to real violence, of the sort that garners criminal charges.
I did. Noticed it myself upon rereading. I have a problem with pulling up the wrong words sometimes. Normally I catch it, but here on /. I don't give it the necessary half hour or so to really catch stuff before posting.
While the Empire State building wouldn't be made the way it was today, I feel that a city doesn't need to be 100% modern, indeed, some older buildings(properly maintained) helps with culture. Venice can be a bastion, a tourist stop, etc...
Kinda like the 'French Quarter' of New Orleans.
It is historically interesting, but the architecture is a reflection of that time - and not reflective of the methods and applications of modern architecture.
While the Empire State building wouldn't be made the way it was today, I feel that a city
I suppose if somebody wants to spend boatloads of money to restore something to a less-than-modern functional state, so tourists can cycle through and buy snacks and souvenirs - then happy investing.
That's essentially what the city is today - minus the bicycling. What I'm proposing is getting rid of the sense of decay. While you're at it, sure, you should be able to figure out ways to modernize here and there - such as installing electricity. But subtly.
But I think it makes more sense to just recreate some of the architecture in a museum somewhere.
Venice, as is, is essentially a big museum. Note - I'm talking the central portion, which a person can easily walk around in a day. I'd generally restore it to the 1700's period. Plus electricity, of course. It just felt so sad, because you get the feeling it's falling apart.
Why not recreate thatched huts and barren, open countryside?
Because Venice didn't orginate as thatched huts, much less open countryside? It was one of the earliest land claims- a city on water, more or less unique in the world.
THAT'S why I favor more turning Venice(at least the core tourist district) into a museum.
Think of a historical building society - written large. If we're going to preserve history, we should preserve it intact, in a fashion that can be appreciated by others - and YES, that includes maintenance and repair.
Mostly true, but on the other hand, I've dealt with several programs that REQUIRE an older version of Java to operate. Mostly because, whether out of lazyness or design, they utilized several functions in ways that were later disabled for security. I mean, all the functions that enabled email worms and such with microsoft office applications weren't put there deliberately for the pleasure of worm writers - they were put there to allow various people using office to automate procedures.
Arguably - look at programs created back during the days of 3.11, 95-98. Because there was no file security, many programs assume that they have write access everywhere - and many would do things like try to write temporary and config files to places like it's own install directory.
Today - a standard user doesn't have write access there so many of the programs will fail unless run as an administrator today.
Well, it sounds like you have more bidding experience than I do. Currently I refuse to do business with Ebay, for example, due to some of their ethics practices.
Still, I view it in terms of game theory and statistics.
For example, I think that selling popular concert tickets(you know, the 'sold out in 5 minute' types) at dutch auction would be a good idea. You put your bid in, knowing that you won't be screwed, in that you'll end up paying the same as everybody else. At the same time, you're encouraged to bid as high as you can stand - in order to make sure you get the tickets. Incidentally, especially if you keep 1-2% of tickets back for sale on-site, this will also take care of most scalping problems.
Generally speaking - I view it as a contest. The bidders want to get the item for as cheap as possible, the seller wants to sell it for as much as possible. There are many ways to do this, from the fast talking cattle auction to a days long silent written bid auction for something like a collection of artwork.
Finally, keep this in mind: An item is only worth what you can get somebody to pay for it.
That's pretty much what I said, right?
I put item X up for auction. I want at least $20 for it. If I put a minimum bid on it I get one guy who puts $20 down on it. Or I set a $20 reserve, bidders 1-10, smelling a deal start bidding, it quickly exceeds $20, but since 1-10 were already looking at it, at least some have their competitive side awake and are looking for a 'win'. Next thing you know it sells for $50.
At least to me, your minimum/starting bid is the same as what you said.
I think that reserve amounts are set in the hope of getting a 'bidding war' started, get more people interested and bidding, and therefore end up running the price above what the item would have sold for with a minimum bid.
I'm somewhat the same as you, it seems. I can appreciate looking at the weapons that are hundreds of years old - such as revolutionary war muskets, swords from the medieval period, and such.
In most cases they're heavily used, but still intact, examples of the time. They're in museums, and available if anybody wants to do a meteorological analysis. Same with the Constitution of the USA, articles of confederation, declaration of independence, magna carta, etc...
Still, I personally don't feel the need to own an original. Personally, I'd rather own a copy of the revolutionary war musket - in all it's operational, get it out and play with it(because it's replaceable), glory.
To be honest - when I visited Venice, I was disappointed. I saw a city past it's time, degrading. Most of the first floors are unusable any more, you travel by footpath rather than boat. Much of the amazing architecture is under water, a lot of it destroyed.
I'd advocate a massive restoration project - the lifting of Venice, and the restoration of it's former glory.
Maybe we shouldn't rebuild the Colosseum at this point - but build a new one next to it.
While I'd tend to change a few bits of Heinlein's list, I DO agree with it over all. And yes, that line did have an effect on me as a child.
I think that we've lost track of things when we get students unwilling to dissect a dead frog or rat*.
I've proposed having a 'life skills' class in school. Some of the stuff I listed can be folded into other classes. Math doesn't and shouldn't be theory and numbers only. Real problems should be in there, might as well stick the budgeting into it. Sex Ed and proper diet fits into health class. Etc... Other stuff goes into the 'catch all'.
*Now, I did have a problem with the pig fetus dissection in high school - specifically, I was driven from the room by the smell within seconds of them opening the lid. Turns out I'm allergic to that preservative. Oops... Still, I've butchered deer before.
Again, in a states where food and rent(housing) isn't taxed, is a sales tax still regressive?
I say no. A family making 10X the amount of the 'poor' family likely doesn't spend 10X as much on food, but on other things that ARE taxed.
But then, I'm unlikely to convince you, just as I personally prefer more or less flat taxes. Or use taxes - where you're actually paying for the services you use.
Yes, I'd object to a heavily regressive tax, but sales tax isn't really all that regressive. I believe that, on average, it's flat. The overall situation starts getting really progressive when you include income and real estate taxes into the mix.
Didn't specify 'Butter', I said cheap Margarine, which, while not butter, at least supposedly tastes like it.
I'll have to double check the store, because I DO make enough money I do my cooking with real butter.
The problem with your statement is that, lacking any presence in NY, NY doesn't have any legal right to force amazon to collect sales tax for them.
It's different if they DO have a presence, which is where this conflict comes in.
And to simply try to ban Amazon from selling to NY residents if they DON'T comply with your sales tax idea is getting into interstate commerce - which they're not allowed to do. That's the feds domain.
Except, to use your butter example, the poor person's buying cheap store brand margarine at $.20/stick, while the rich guy is buying Organic hand-churned at $2/stick.
So it all evens out, and is flat - with modifications caused by the individual spending habits of the person.
Of course there is a reason, and it is that a person with a lot of income spends a lower percentage of that income on consumption.
That is NOT guarenteed by any means. There are people out there that make half of what I do and save money, there are people who earn ten times what I do and spend every cent of it and then some.
Me, I save 10-20% of my income. In my state, food from a grocery store isn't subject to sales tax.
Is the sales tax still necessarily regressive?