Vote Ron Paul in the Republican primary. He will at least raise everybody's game. Find out if your state has an open or close primary. If closed, you ought to register with party, if open, you can vote in the Republican primary.
Who the fuck mod'd this flaimbait? FUCK YOU. Mod me down as this is a garbage account. It only exists so I can set my prefs to eliminate the Karma bonus, the dick$uckup bonus, and the hit ACs take for being principled and posting AC. Every post starts off the same.
SO FUCK YOU MODERATORS!
(even though using a national healthcare system reduces the cost to each person over a private system *and* has the altruistic bonus of covering the less fortunate)
There is no private health care when the government can
1 Dicate who can practice medicine (or who can certify those to practice medicine)
2 Dictate what drugs you can take
3 Meddle with insurance companies (require coverage of this if buying that)
4 Restrict the production or import of medicines or medical devices via unreasonable tariffs or patent protections*
5 Use perverse tax incentives to tie health care to your present employer. Why not encourage our corporate overlords own our fucking houses like Pottersville?
* Time has long past - if ever there was one - for the utility of patents. For them to go forward, it should be a strictly reward based system. Alternatively, nobody should be allowed to restrict the use of a patent particularly when NO MONEY is changing hands. The boogeyman was always some evil person profiting off of another's work. Take away the profit, take away the patent fees. I would have bargaining, mandated if necessary, so that anybody could pay the fee to use the patent not unlike the way music is licensed to radio stations. Maybe the "one click shopping" patent is worth $0.00001 and that would be what you pay to use it each time. Of course, it is worth $0, but you get the idea.
Because for about two per thousand cases, it causes meningitis which kills about half of the affected patients, leaving many of the survivors brain damaged for life. For quite a few who don't get meningitis, it causes blindness and deafness (measles was the #1 cause of both in the 50s.)
This suggests a few questions to me:
1) What is the rate of complications from the MMR immunization?
This link:
http://pediatrics.about.com/cs/immunizations/a/mmr_vis_2.htm
Suggests mild complications in 1 of 6 and death in 1 of 1,000,000.
2) If the odds of getting measles is less than 1 in 1000, and the most negative affects (death) are at 1 in 1000, then NOT getting the shot puts you at 1 in 1,000,000 chance of death. Just like getting the effing shot in the first place.
3) Why not let the measles run a little wild and see if "the market" or whoever can find some solutions to that. Make this a win-win-win.
To be sure, I am pro vaccination. But unlike Rick Perry, I am opposed to FORCED vaccination by the government.
This is not society's fault, nor the fault of the police, or the government, but the fault of a generation of bottom feeding scum sucking opportunists that need a harsh lesson in reality dealt to them.
Governments do a lot of things to destroy jobs and employment opportunities. Off the top of my head there is:
1. Minimum wage laws - like 'em or not - they reduce employment levels 2. Restrictions against firing people - if you can't fire "at will", why hire unless you need to? Outsource! 3. Regulations on opening a business - BS like needing a liquor license 4. Creation of black markets - gambling, prostitution, narcotics - these may be "jobs" but they are necessarily populated and run with a disrespect for the law and, arguably, society in general. These are 100% the fault of government 5. Welfare. Why work when you get free money? I'd argue, if you have to prevent the collapse of society from starvation or exposure, then it would be better to hand out food directly or open shelters. Giving out money makes the problem worse. Is there ANY private charity that just hands out cash to poor people? Not grants, not scholorships, not loans. I mean a Church that is handing out cash to an obvious bum, addict, thug, or malcontent. THEY DO NOT DO THIS! They identify a specific need, food, shelter, medical, and provide that specific need.
Nobody I know who builds their own PC uses the stock cooler of either Intel or AMD unless they are on a very tight budget and even then it's the first thing getting replaced.
Do you know how hard it is to find a good low profile HSF. If the stock one works, see feedback here, then why change? Then again, I build PCs for business use mainly and personal use only on occasion. In both cases, the only non-stocks I use are the custom heating solutions that come with Shuttle XPC (integrated case, PSU, and motherboard).
To me, a bigger question is why more people don't build their own PCs. It takes less time to slap the hardware together than it does to de-crapify a consumer/small business Dell PC (or HP or just about anyone else).
The review can only be seen with JavaScript enabled.
It is only necessary to enable v3.co.uk. There are about a dozen other sites trying to run mysteryware that can be kept disabled. Also, it works my US-easy-list Adblock.
No True Scotsman.
Try not using an intentional logical fallacy.
Consider how many on the left are disappointed at Obama for not being ____ enough (____ = socialist, democratic, progressive). There are as many of those people - if not more - on the right with actual political parties that have won national elections and are regionally of greater significance in limited areas. However, it is more convenient for you to misinterpret a logical fallacy. Nobody is talking about "'True' Scotsman". The talk is about "Scotsman" and, thus, you have no point.
On a 55mph road you'll have a sign saying 35 on a turn on which you can easily do 45 even in the rain, followed by a turn which says nothing on which you should be doing 25.
Are you driving a semi-tractor trailer or are on an ice/snow/slush-covered road? That is what those signs are for - the worst-case scenarios. Rain under your performance tires is not a worst-case scenario.
Audible slow-down warnings would be nice as well as red-light/speed camera/trap notifications.
Ah yes "teh marketz will solve everything!". I hope YOUR job gets shipped overseas. I'm sure YOU wouldn't expect anyone in government to care. Maybe if you became more efficient and worked for less money...
I can almost guarantee you would work for 1970 minimum wage if it was paid in Gold equivalents. You are focused on the price on a check not on what it can buy, not on the few-to-several percents stolen every year by the government and its bankers. At the time $1.60/hr would be (let's assume) $10 after taxes and 8 hours on the low-paying job. $10 would buy - at the time - 1/4 oz of gold which is ~$450 today.
Somebody brainwashed you to hate on Wal*Mart so you would ignore them. This is why so many people in the middle-east are anti-Semitic.
Don't buy food from them either. Don't let them drive all the other grocery stores in town out of business, the way they did all the department stores and mom-and-pops. Don't encourage them.
Their competition is hardly "mom-and-pops". Besides, why should I patronize their (other grocery stores) coupon games with their fine print BS? Wal*Mart offers lower pricing, no coupon BS needed, NO CLUB CARD, and they are closer than many other choices. Am I to drive further and pay more just so mega-corp Target can get my money? Or you want me to drive even further and pay even more so the boutique "mom and pop"-looking store gets the profits. Why?
Please do some research before you imply Hitler and Mussolini are not right-wing.
Right wing can mean libertarian/Objectivist and it can also mean fascist. These two are exclusive ideas yet are described the same depending on whether or not you are a classical liberal or a progressive liberal (another example of opposites, yet both described as liberal - go figure). This is why political idealogy is often mapped onto a grid (e.g., a social freedom axis and an economic freedom axis). How did this knowledge escape you?
Our current and sole problem - the show stopper - is not running SAP's Business One. This vs that is an entertaining sideshow that few outside the tech community are aware of.
So IN CONCLUSION, what you've shown is that if we look at only "urban interstate" traffic, ignore "rural interstate" traffic, and assume that an average semi weighs no more than about 25 tons (as opposed to the 40-ton maximum that shipping companies aim for) then and only then do cars and trucks break even. In all other cases, trucks pay less (proportionally) than cars do. Unless you want to venture from the confines of actual road costs and try to include fuzzy concepts like "societal costs". But I'm sure a guy of such rigorous devotion to hard data wouldn't want to do that.
The societal cost which cannot be ignored, IMO, is congestion. The flaw, with the left sided graph - which you prefer - is that it only looks at marginal costs. In many of these rural areas, without the truck traffic, I doubt there would be funds to pay for a nice, paved road.
What are you trying to defend at this point? The 24,000X factor is thrown far out the windown. At best, the factor is 10? Let's ignore the fact that we haven't discussed the benefits of travel. Driving Susie forty miles to her soccer game can't compare with delivering a truck groceries.
Also, the oft-quoted but rarely thought about "4th power rule" as a meaningful cost is debunked. It is one factor that goes into the cost of roadways.
So now that you've dug up all this data to help me prove my point, what's next?
Now that we've done it your way and shown that the truck merely does 2,400 - 4,300 times the damage as a single car, what's next?
Let's recap, fuckface. Your number started at 24,000. It is down nearly a factor of 10 (or 5). Next, keep in mind that many factors go into the cost of the road and how often the pavement cracks up from truck traffic is but one factor.
Table 4, comparing "urban" multipliers, there is a "pavement cost" factor ratio that varies from a low of 31 (0.1 car/3.1 40k truck urban "Marginal Pavement Cost") to a high of 409. Given that your initial contention was "road wear" and not "pavement cost", I think the 409 is a safe worst-case multiplier (you could argue infinity on the assumption that the truck traffic would pay for the road and a car does nothing if capacity is not an issue). If you look at the left side of the graph, your case falls further apart. Urban to urban, your case nearly collapses as the factors vary from 2.5 to 7 (e.g., 9.08 for auto/urban and 65.15 for 80k truck/urban).
Looking for a good reference to finish this, Bing helped, Google did not.
On average, a typical 80,000 pound GVW tractor-trailer truck pays $13,889 per year in truck highway taxes according to the above data. A hypothetical auto owner driving 20,000 miles per year at 25 mpg, and paying $100 in registration fees, ends up paying about $397 per year. So on average, looking at federal and state taxes, a tractor-trailer combination trucks pay about 35 times what a typical auto would pay based on national averages. [source]
Lastly, your wiki link is unclear. You have gone from "road wear" to "bridge damage". WTF? Please use references that study more than just one cost. I referenced cost multipliers of 2.5, 7, 31, and 409 and supplied a reference suggesting trucks pay 35 times as much (typically) in taxes/fees. You have nothing to complain about. Find some other bullshit excuse to bitch about SUVs (that are really closer to the "car" side in this debate as weight is concerned).
I wouldn't mind the "cut spending" pressure coming from the Tea Party if the people pushing hardest for that didn't also seem to be entirely incapable of compromise.
Obama, Reid, Boehner. Those were the three people at the table and non of them are "tea party". Besides, how do you compromise with a leaderless abstraction? If Ron Paul or Bachman was at the table, then you might have a point. As it was, you are only an ignorant fuckface.
Taking into account that road wear is proportional to the fourth power of weight [no it isn't, fuckface], and one semi bringing groceries to the store causes as much wear and tear as 24,414 cars. Do you think that semi pay 24,000 times as much in taxes and fees on a per-mile basis as you do? If not, then business owners are getting a lot more out of their road and fuel taxes than you are.
THIRD, this is ONE FACTOR of road costs, specifically, it is road damage from load-bearing vehicles (ice and flooding would be non-vehicle causes or wear and damage). Another cost factor is peak capacity (cars). E.g., having one or two lanes trucks can't use just to haul your fat ass.
Support your opinion with some honest to goodness first-hand research and don't just parrot what you read.
That would be 5 one ounce double eagles (gold). The worth would be 5 x $1700 (today) = $8500 in today's dollars. Although the value of money is relative, in such a world, our pennies would count for much, much more. We would likely need a 1/10 penny piece (or 1/8).
All patents should be abolished. If the government and the people still feel the need to reward "inventors", then they should use the general tax revenue to reward people for that purpose. When patents were enshrined into US law, there was no income tax and no means to express this well-meaining, however market-distorting, sentiment. The US is a manufacturing country and will make a lot more with patents out of the way and more lawyers working real jobs or taking up better causes (e.g., War on Drugs, fighting copyright lunacy).
I'm not a Christian by any means, but "love thy neighbour" was a good practical piece of advice.
"Fences make good neighbors" is a better piece of advice.
People behave better to those they know than those they don't know. It's the Golden Rule in action.
There are two versions of the golden rule. The first is, "Treat others as you would expect to be treated". This has implications depending on whether or not you wish to be left alone. The other golden rule is a snarky version, "He who has the gold, makes the rules." YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE GOLDEN RULE IS!
As for the condition of your parks, might I suggest a modest tax increase, sufficient to allow the municipality to maintain the parks? And failing that, a neighbourhood park maintenance co-op group?
Now we have two solutions to the problem,
1) Buy the house with the large lot (BTW, these lots are usually established and already zoned and not an act of social planning/forsight/SimCity on the part of the eventual owner) 2) Fight/change city hall
Given that changing how a city works means I have to deal with people who don't even know what the golden rule is (!), I know which solution I would prefer.
However, the real problem are parents. Too many parents have abrogated their responsibilities.
What responsibilities? The government will
- educate them through HS and beyond (via Federal loans now, having nationalized the student loan industry)
- hand out food stamps and provide school lunches
- provide subsidized housing
- medical care for the "poor" kids (sometimes a group better off than those with more income if the benefit mix is there)
Consider that it is illegal for these children to work (not 18) or interact as adults (drinking age 21) or make decisions regarding sex (unless it is to have an abortion). They are protected by a "juvenile" court system. WTF!? Does that really protect them or only the most guilty amongst them?
To raise children properly, one needs to have them in the right environment. If luck does not provide that, then you need a combination of time, money, and intelligence that will be, by necessity, limited. The average IQ is 100 and always will be. The poor will always be with us just as certainly as second place exists in any contest. How we deal with this is what matters.
So, the responsibility ends up being foisted on the government.
The powers that be have been begging for control of the youth for centuries. These groups are in control and the hoodlums have added another bullet point. The government will,
-take away your freedom of mobility for the crime of being under 18
What the fuck is a parant supposed to do in that city? There is - at a minimum - one answer: Move the hell away. There are other approaches some are confrontational and others might be more Zen-like. I don't think parents are to blame any more than anybody else. As Americans, many of us have failed to defend our liberties and the liberties of others (you can't be free among slaves).
Your suggestion that anything other than slavery was the casus belli take only a few minutes with Google to utterly refute, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself for attempting to excuse these evil-doers.
Thankfully, I said no such thing, fucktard. "Many more factors besides slavery" in no way contradicts "anything other than slavery was the casus belli". In fact, by mentioning slavery, I am supporting that position. Not being a pretentious faggot, I had to look up casus belli: "an event or action that justifies or allegedly justifies a war or conflict". You are somewhat outside the scope regarding moral justification(s) versus causes like the underlying political issues (and open hostilities). That's pathetic.
But then the correct solution is just not play the game at all.
Yes. I'm a linux-using freetard so my position is not 100% hypocritical. I would further agree that people pirating MSFT or Adobe or other products are an EXTREME disincentive to fix free versions or even to create lower cost non-free versions.
But, here is the rub, which is the greater evil, buying an album/movie/software and sending money to Sony/Disney/Microsoft or pirating it? We know that Bill Gates preferred people pirate than use competing versions.
Here's a question for youâ"not that I necessarily disagree with your viewpointâ"at what point do you consider an amount of money you've paid to access to something sufficient to reacquire it through any means you wish? I.e., if you were charged ten cents for access to an extremely DRMed e-book, would you still feel like you had the right to 'pirate' it and lend it to a friend?
Riddle me this:
- Does the privacy agreement give the company a blank check to abuse my information (within the law)? Most privacy agreements lie by saying "we value your privacy" and then explain how they will do anything, within the law, to abuse this information.
- Does the company track my reading or viewing habits? What is done with that information?
- Does the purchase immunize me - to some extent, but explicitly so - from lawsuits related to the IP of that specific content? If not, what the hell am I purchasing?
- What rights does the company retain to refuse my future access to that information? Will I lose my account if I bad mouth them or my account information is not up-to-date or inaccurate?
- Does the company sue its customers or promote legislation I find abhorrent like slavery or copyright time extensions?
- What is the company's view on "fair use" rights and does the DRM interfere with them?
- Can I purchase the item with as much anonymity as a guy with cash at a store?
Slashdot Mirror
Vote Ron Paul in the Republican primary. He will at least raise everybody's game. Find out if your state has an open or close primary. If closed, you ought to register with party, if open, you can vote in the Republican primary.
Who the fuck mod'd this flaimbait? FUCK YOU. Mod me down as this is a garbage account. It only exists so I can set my prefs to eliminate the Karma bonus, the dick$uckup bonus, and the hit ACs take for being principled and posting AC. Every post starts off the same. SO FUCK YOU MODERATORS!
(even though using a national healthcare system reduces the cost to each person over a private system *and* has the altruistic bonus of covering the less fortunate)
There is no private health care when the government can
1 Dicate who can practice medicine (or who can certify those to practice medicine)
2 Dictate what drugs you can take
3 Meddle with insurance companies (require coverage of this if buying that)
4 Restrict the production or import of medicines or medical devices via unreasonable tariffs or patent protections*
5 Use perverse tax incentives to tie health care to your present employer. Why not encourage our corporate overlords own our fucking houses like Pottersville?
* Time has long past - if ever there was one - for the utility of patents. For them to go forward, it should be a strictly reward based system. Alternatively, nobody should be allowed to restrict the use of a patent particularly when NO MONEY is changing hands. The boogeyman was always some evil person profiting off of another's work. Take away the profit, take away the patent fees. I would have bargaining, mandated if necessary, so that anybody could pay the fee to use the patent not unlike the way music is licensed to radio stations. Maybe the "one click shopping" patent is worth $0.00001 and that would be what you pay to use it each time. Of course, it is worth $0, but you get the idea.
Because for about two per thousand cases, it causes meningitis which kills about half of the affected patients, leaving many of the survivors brain damaged for life. For quite a few who don't get meningitis, it causes blindness and deafness (measles was the #1 cause of both in the 50s.)
This suggests a few questions to me:
1) What is the rate of complications from the MMR immunization?
This link:
http://pediatrics.about.com/cs/immunizations/a/mmr_vis_2.htm
Suggests mild complications in 1 of 6 and death in 1 of 1,000,000.
2) If the odds of getting measles is less than 1 in 1000, and the most negative affects (death) are at 1 in 1000, then NOT getting the shot puts you at 1 in 1,000,000 chance of death. Just like getting the effing shot in the first place.
3) Why not let the measles run a little wild and see if "the market" or whoever can find some solutions to that. Make this a win-win-win.
To be sure, I am pro vaccination. But unlike Rick Perry, I am opposed to FORCED vaccination by the government.
This is not society's fault, nor the fault of the police, or the government, but the fault of a generation of bottom feeding scum sucking opportunists that need a harsh lesson in reality dealt to them.
Governments do a lot of things to destroy jobs and employment opportunities. Off the top of my head there is:
1. Minimum wage laws - like 'em or not - they reduce employment levels
2. Restrictions against firing people - if you can't fire "at will", why hire unless you need to? Outsource!
3. Regulations on opening a business - BS like needing a liquor license
4. Creation of black markets - gambling, prostitution, narcotics - these may be "jobs" but they are necessarily populated and run with a disrespect for the law and, arguably, society in general. These are 100% the fault of government
5. Welfare. Why work when you get free money? I'd argue, if you have to prevent the collapse of society from starvation or exposure, then it would be better to hand out food directly or open shelters. Giving out money makes the problem worse. Is there ANY private charity that just hands out cash to poor people? Not grants, not scholorships, not loans. I mean a Church that is handing out cash to an obvious bum, addict, thug, or malcontent. THEY DO NOT DO THIS! They identify a specific need, food, shelter, medical, and provide that specific need.
Nobody I know who builds their own PC uses the stock cooler of either Intel or AMD unless they are on a very tight budget and even then it's the first thing getting replaced.
Do you know how hard it is to find a good low profile HSF. If the stock one works, see feedback here, then why change? Then again, I build PCs for business use mainly and personal use only on occasion. In both cases, the only non-stocks I use are the custom heating solutions that come with Shuttle XPC (integrated case, PSU, and motherboard).
To me, a bigger question is why more people don't build their own PCs. It takes less time to slap the hardware together than it does to de-crapify a consumer/small business Dell PC (or HP or just about anyone else).
The review can only be seen with JavaScript enabled.
It is only necessary to enable v3.co.uk. There are about a dozen other sites trying to run mysteryware that can be kept disabled. Also, it works my US-easy-list Adblock.
Regardless of whether or not the Windows security model you speak of is broken or not, Its security problems are there for Apple to observe.
You can observe and learn from a fool as well as a mentor.
No True Scotsman. Try not using an intentional logical fallacy.
Consider how many on the left are disappointed at Obama for not being ____ enough (____ = socialist, democratic, progressive). There are as many of those people - if not more - on the right with actual political parties that have won national elections and are regionally of greater significance in limited areas. However, it is more convenient for you to misinterpret a logical fallacy. Nobody is talking about "'True' Scotsman". The talk is about "Scotsman" and, thus, you have no point.
On a 55mph road you'll have a sign saying 35 on a turn on which you can easily do 45 even in the rain, followed by a turn which says nothing on which you should be doing 25.
Are you driving a semi-tractor trailer or are on an ice/snow/slush-covered road? That is what those signs are for - the worst-case scenarios. Rain under your performance tires is not a worst-case scenario.
Audible slow-down warnings would be nice as well as red-light/speed camera/trap notifications.
Ah yes "teh marketz will solve everything!". I hope YOUR job gets shipped overseas. I'm sure YOU wouldn't expect anyone in government to care. Maybe if you became more efficient and worked for less money...
I can almost guarantee you would work for 1970 minimum wage if it was paid in Gold equivalents. You are focused on the price on a check not on what it can buy, not on the few-to-several percents stolen every year by the government and its bankers. At the time $1.60/hr would be (let's assume) $10 after taxes and 8 hours on the low-paying job. $10 would buy - at the time - 1/4 oz of gold which is ~$450 today.
Somebody brainwashed you to hate on Wal*Mart so you would ignore them. This is why so many people in the middle-east are anti-Semitic.
Don't buy food from them either. Don't let them drive all the other grocery stores in town out of business, the way they did all the department stores and mom-and-pops. Don't encourage them.
Their competition is hardly "mom-and-pops". Besides, why should I patronize their (other grocery stores) coupon games with their fine print BS? Wal*Mart offers lower pricing, no coupon BS needed, NO CLUB CARD, and they are closer than many other choices. Am I to drive further and pay more just so mega-corp Target can get my money? Or you want me to drive even further and pay even more so the boutique "mom and pop"-looking store gets the profits. Why?
Please do some research before you imply Hitler and Mussolini are not right-wing.
Right wing can mean libertarian/Objectivist and it can also mean fascist. These two are exclusive ideas yet are described the same depending on whether or not you are a classical liberal or a progressive liberal (another example of opposites, yet both described as liberal - go figure). This is why political idealogy is often mapped onto a grid (e.g., a social freedom axis and an economic freedom axis). How did this knowledge escape you?
Our current and sole problem - the show stopper - is not running SAP's Business One. This vs that is an entertaining sideshow that few outside the tech community are aware of.
So IN CONCLUSION, what you've shown is that if we look at only "urban interstate" traffic, ignore "rural interstate" traffic, and assume that an average semi weighs no more than about 25 tons (as opposed to the 40-ton maximum that shipping companies aim for) then and only then do cars and trucks break even. In all other cases, trucks pay less (proportionally) than cars do. Unless you want to venture from the confines of actual road costs and try to include fuzzy concepts like "societal costs". But I'm sure a guy of such rigorous devotion to hard data wouldn't want to do that.
The societal cost which cannot be ignored, IMO, is congestion. The flaw, with the left sided graph - which you prefer - is that it only looks at marginal costs. In many of these rural areas, without the truck traffic, I doubt there would be funds to pay for a nice, paved road.
What are you trying to defend at this point? The 24,000X factor is thrown far out the windown. At best, the factor is 10? Let's ignore the fact that we haven't discussed the benefits of travel. Driving Susie forty miles to her soccer game can't compare with delivering a truck groceries.
Also, the oft-quoted but rarely thought about "4th power rule" as a meaningful cost is debunked. It is one factor that goes into the cost of roadways.
So now that you've dug up all this data to help me prove my point, what's next?
You have a point? If so, it is a moving target.
Let's recap, fuckface. Your number started at 24,000. It is down nearly a factor of 10 (or 5). Next, keep in mind that many factors go into the cost of the road and how often the pavement cracks up from truck traffic is but one factor.
I will direct you to this graph of "Marginal Pavement and Other Social Costs (excluding pollution) " (scroll down a bit). For certain elements of rural travel, the marginal cost of the car is zero. I.e., they need a road there for logging traffic or whatever and the car - in a rural context - does not add to the damage nor impact the capacity. Impacting the capacity would have a cost.
Table 4, comparing "urban" multipliers, there is a "pavement cost" factor ratio that varies from a low of 31 (0.1 car/3.1 40k truck urban "Marginal Pavement Cost") to a high of 409. Given that your initial contention was "road wear" and not "pavement cost", I think the 409 is a safe worst-case multiplier (you could argue infinity on the assumption that the truck traffic would pay for the road and a car does nothing if capacity is not an issue). If you look at the left side of the graph, your case falls further apart. Urban to urban, your case nearly collapses as the factors vary from 2.5 to 7 (e.g., 9.08 for auto/urban and 65.15 for 80k truck/urban).
Looking for a good reference to finish this, Bing helped, Google did not.
On average, a typical 80,000 pound GVW tractor-trailer truck pays $13,889 per year in truck highway taxes according to the above data. A hypothetical auto owner driving 20,000 miles per year at 25 mpg, and paying $100 in registration fees, ends up paying about $397 per year. So on average, looking at federal and state taxes, a tractor-trailer combination trucks pay about 35 times what a typical auto would pay based on national averages. [source]
Lastly, your wiki link is unclear. You have gone from "road wear" to "bridge damage". WTF? Please use references that study more than just one cost. I referenced cost multipliers of 2.5, 7, 31, and 409 and supplied a reference suggesting trucks pay 35 times as much (typically) in taxes/fees. You have nothing to complain about. Find some other bullshit excuse to bitch about SUVs (that are really closer to the "car" side in this debate as weight is concerned).
I wouldn't mind the "cut spending" pressure coming from the Tea Party if the people pushing hardest for that didn't also seem to be entirely incapable of compromise.
Obama, Reid, Boehner. Those were the three people at the table and non of them are "tea party". Besides, how do you compromise with a leaderless abstraction? If Ron Paul or Bachman was at the table, then you might have a point. As it was, you are only an ignorant fuckface.
Taking into account that road wear is proportional to the fourth power of weight [no it isn't, fuckface], and one semi bringing groceries to the store causes as much wear and tear as 24,414 cars. Do you think that semi pay 24,000 times as much in taxes and fees on a per-mile basis as you do? If not, then business owners are getting a lot more out of their road and fuel taxes than you are.
FIRST, that is PER AXLE not PER VEHICLE.
SECOND, it is not the "4th power" so much as it is an estimate. This link says 3.8 is also a valid estimate.
THIRD, this is ONE FACTOR of road costs, specifically, it is road damage from load-bearing vehicles (ice and flooding would be non-vehicle causes or wear and damage). Another cost factor is peak capacity (cars). E.g., having one or two lanes trucks can't use just to haul your fat ass.
Support your opinion with some honest to goodness first-hand research and don't just parrot what you read.
100 bucks for a fully loaded top quality laptop?
That would be 5 one ounce double eagles (gold). The worth would be 5 x $1700 (today) = $8500 in today's dollars. Although the value of money is relative, in such a world, our pennies would count for much, much more. We would likely need a 1/10 penny piece (or 1/8).
All patents should be abolished. If the government and the people still feel the need to reward "inventors", then they should use the general tax revenue to reward people for that purpose. When patents were enshrined into US law, there was no income tax and no means to express this well-meaining, however market-distorting, sentiment. The US is a manufacturing country and will make a lot more with patents out of the way and more lawyers working real jobs or taking up better causes (e.g., War on Drugs, fighting copyright lunacy).
I'm not a Christian by any means, but "love thy neighbour" was a good practical piece of advice.
"Fences make good neighbors" is a better piece of advice.
People behave better to those they know than those they don't know. It's the Golden Rule in action.
There are two versions of the golden rule. The first is, "Treat others as you would expect to be treated". This has implications depending on whether or not you wish to be left alone. The other golden rule is a snarky version, "He who has the gold, makes the rules." YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE GOLDEN RULE IS!
As for the condition of your parks, might I suggest a modest tax increase, sufficient to allow the municipality to maintain the parks? And failing that, a neighbourhood park maintenance co-op group?
Now we have two solutions to the problem,
1) Buy the house with the large lot (BTW, these lots are usually established and already zoned and not an act of social planning/forsight/SimCity on the part of the eventual owner)
2) Fight/change city hall
Given that changing how a city works means I have to deal with people who don't even know what the golden rule is (!), I know which solution I would prefer.
However, the real problem are parents. Too many parents have abrogated their responsibilities.
What responsibilities? The government will
- educate them through HS and beyond (via Federal loans now, having nationalized the student loan industry)
- hand out food stamps and provide school lunches
- provide subsidized housing
- medical care for the "poor" kids (sometimes a group better off than those with more income if the benefit mix is there)
Consider that it is illegal for these children to work (not 18) or interact as adults (drinking age 21) or make decisions regarding sex (unless it is to have an abortion). They are protected by a "juvenile" court system. WTF!? Does that really protect them or only the most guilty amongst them?
To raise children properly, one needs to have them in the right environment. If luck does not provide that, then you need a combination of time, money, and intelligence that will be, by necessity, limited. The average IQ is 100 and always will be. The poor will always be with us just as certainly as second place exists in any contest. How we deal with this is what matters.
So, the responsibility ends up being foisted on the government.
The powers that be have been begging for control of the youth for centuries. These groups are in control and the hoodlums have added another bullet point. The government will,
-take away your freedom of mobility for the crime of being under 18
What the fuck is a parant supposed to do in that city? There is - at a minimum - one answer: Move the hell away. There are other approaches some are confrontational and others might be more Zen-like. I don't think parents are to blame any more than anybody else. As Americans, many of us have failed to defend our liberties and the liberties of others (you can't be free among slaves).
Your suggestion that anything other than slavery was the casus belli take only a few minutes with Google to utterly refute, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself for attempting to excuse these evil-doers.
Thankfully, I said no such thing, fucktard. "Many more factors besides slavery" in no way contradicts "anything other than slavery was the casus belli". In fact, by mentioning slavery, I am supporting that position. Not being a pretentious faggot, I had to look up casus belli: "an event or action that justifies or allegedly justifies a war or conflict". You are somewhat outside the scope regarding moral justification(s) versus causes like the underlying political issues (and open hostilities). That's pathetic.
But then the correct solution is just not play the game at all.
Yes. I'm a linux-using freetard so my position is not 100% hypocritical. I would further agree that people pirating MSFT or Adobe or other products are an EXTREME disincentive to fix free versions or even to create lower cost non-free versions.
But, here is the rub, which is the greater evil, buying an album/movie/software and sending money to Sony/Disney/Microsoft or pirating it? We know that Bill Gates preferred people pirate than use competing versions.
Here's a question for youâ"not that I necessarily disagree with your viewpointâ"at what point do you consider an amount of money you've paid to access to something sufficient to reacquire it through any means you wish? I.e., if you were charged ten cents for access to an extremely DRMed e-book, would you still feel like you had the right to 'pirate' it and lend it to a friend?
Riddle me this:
- Does the privacy agreement give the company a blank check to abuse my information (within the law)? Most privacy agreements lie by saying "we value your privacy" and then explain how they will do anything, within the law, to abuse this information.
- Does the company track my reading or viewing habits? What is done with that information?
- Does the purchase immunize me - to some extent, but explicitly so - from lawsuits related to the IP of that specific content? If not, what the hell am I purchasing?
- What rights does the company retain to refuse my future access to that information? Will I lose my account if I bad mouth them or my account information is not up-to-date or inaccurate?
- Does the company sue its customers or promote legislation I find abhorrent like slavery or copyright time extensions?
- What is the company's view on "fair use" rights and does the DRM interfere with them?
- Can I purchase the item with as much anonymity as a guy with cash at a store?