The ability of a government to control anything is independent of whether the scheme in question originated with starry eyed libertarians with a shaky grasp of economics.
If the government wants to regulate Lego, model railroading, soda, The Interwebs, the word "Milk", supermarkets, pharmacies operating in the open, and water, it is able to, and does.
Virtually the only way a government cannot regulate the use of bitcoins (and thus the currency itself) is if it chooses not to, either by banning it completely forcing the currency underground, or by ignoring it.
Well, X11's just a standard, not a bad one even if it probably wouldn't have been designed this way if it were done today. Mind you, of all the surviving GUI infrastructure components from the early eighties it's probably the only one that was built with THE CLOUD(!!!?!!) in mind...
On the other hand, yes, various implementations of X have been difficult to use, that is, difficult to install and get running. It wasn't until the X.org split that real attempts were made to make the system "just work", with previous attempts requiring people run scripts to make "sane" XFree86.config files, which in turn generally needed to be tweaked to ensure the system booted up in a useful resolution. Back in the early 2000s, you actually had to edit the effing text file and restart X (effectively a reboot in all but name given every single GUI program including your desktop would be closed in the process) just to change monitor resolution.
Still, I must admit having read TFA, I'm still utterly confused by the Wayland situation. Can we just accept that while X.org may be imperfect, it's still an extremely functional, fast, powerful system, and we can, and should, focus on it rather than throwing out everything and starting again?
This bullshit injustice against the Liberty Dollar is just that -- injustice and contempt for the rights of private citizens to agree upon a DIFFERENT standard of value.
It's illegal to mint your own currency. The last Wikipedia link includes information on that. There are legitimate reasons to ban it, and the Federal government does. So, actually, the person you're responding to is right.
You can, if you want, claim the law is unjust, that it's in the same category as laws against pot or non-harmful sexual acts between consenting adults. However, the government does have the power, and the right, to consider a different picture to your individual concerns, and believe that overall an action would harm the country and the people who live in it, and therefore pass a ban on the basis of logic you disagree with.
That doesn't stop them from having the power, they do, it just means you don't like it.
I, for one, will buy (good) games that run on a standards based platform that eschew DRM, running on any computer I want, and has the added advantage of not needing to be "installed".
Virtually all of T-Mobile's Android phones can route their calls over Wi-fi. It's not wonderful, and it's not the full UMA thing (which treats the Internet as just another tower - complete with handoff, which T-Mobile hasn't implemented in their Android app alas) but it does help significantly with the coverage issue.
The very existence of so many laws that apply only when affairs involve interstate trade is proof that they know their genuine authority stops there.
No, it isn't. Congress has many possible justifications to legislate in an area while keeping it constitutional. Only one of them is the interstate commerce clause.
The fact they use it sometimes, and don't other times, with the approval of the other two branches, is proof that it's not the sole basis of Congress's authority.
It happens to be a very powerful clause, a much more powerful one than the founders possibly intended. As a result, some argue it's misused. The problem with the misuse argument is that, for the most part, commerce has changed radically since the late 1700s.
But it's but one source of authority, and Congress has multiple, from the specific (the copyright clause) to the extremely wooly and ill defined (the common welfare.)
Probably not. If people looked in 2D, then yeah, I could see it, but in reality your eyes have a limited ability to keep multiple things in focus at once. We don't care about that for the most part because we're able to change focus very quickly.
If a message comes up saying "Slow down, ice ahead", the reality is that you will take your eyes off the road to read the message, even though your eyes will still be pointing in the same direction.
I know I'll be modded down for this, but from the outside, it most certainly does look like a kind of scam. Bitcoin appears to be, essentially, a money laundering service, albeit set up by idealist people who have no idea what currency is or what it's trying to achieve who think that fiat money terrible (because GOVERNMENT) who thought they were replacing banks, not setting up a money laundering service. The two major players appear to be said idealists, and money launderers, with the occasional sucker brought in temporarily because they want to buy something that's also priced in bitcoins.
Suppose though that the outside view is wrong: It still makes no sense whatsoever. Money is created at a rate based upon energy prices and computer power, which means it'll never keep up with the demands of a modern economy. We abandoned gold, a similarly stupid system, for much the same reason.
I'd have more sympathy if I felt the major advertised problem Bitcoins were trying to address were legitimate. But for the most part, it's the misguided belief that the gold standard was a great thing, and that consistently small and positive inflation is terrible.
Is it successful right now? Bitcoin enthusiasts seem rather excited that the last few years have shown the currency to be getting more stable. At the same time, well, it would, wouldn't it? With austerity in most countries, including hidden austerity in the US (yes, Fed spending went up, but not enough to counter spending cuts in local and state governments), virtually the entire western world has seen their economies slow to the point that the flaws in Bitcoin's growth model haven't come to the surface. But imagine economic growth in the modern world coming back, and a serious rise in energy prices as a result, and... well, I'm pretty sure the drastic swings in value as the currency alternates between hyperdeflation and hyperinflation will make most people continue to avoid the entire thing.
Even if you are hitting the bare metal, the 1970s and 1980s taught us that you still tend to have something called an OS around, even if it's just a program loader and some kind of defacto standard for storing files.
This is worse than those people who confuse a kernel with an operating system, forgetting why the word "kernel" was invented in the first place. The term operating system is an umbrella term for a massive range of concepts, ultimately boiling down to a set of tools or concepts that ensure a user can manage the applications and data on their computer. That could, in theory, be entirely codeless. In this instance, it's not, there's Xen, and some kind of virtual hardware layer.
Most tech people (not the ITT/college/mil tech crowd) have social disorders like aspergers,
In my experience, no they don't. Many are socially awkward anyway, and some use Aspergers as a convenient self-diagnosis, but most (of the socially awkward) are simply smart people who may or may not have spent more time analysing and learning cool things than socialising.
In this case, the crude jokes that started it all, to be honest, would just have easily have come out of the mouths of salespeople, realtors, account managers, lawyers, and others at similar but appropriate types of conference. Nothing about the conversation - even as described by Adria - really suggests any unusual anti-social mindset by those involved. Indeed, Adria's unwillingness to actually turn around and tell them to knock it off with the lewd jokes, but decision instead to use a computer network to pillory them, would be more unusual.
And while it's tempting to look at the aftermath, with large numbers (supposedly) of apparent nutcases threatening Adria with every vile threat under the sun, including the R word, and say "See? Men in computing are especially anti-social and sexist", I don't think you can even make that judgment. We're a very large group, we represent every social and political group in the country, and it's hardly surprising that a bunch of right-wing nutcases would be part of our group too.
No, we're pretty normal, we're pretty level headed, and we shouldn't act as if we're some weird group that's been mentally hardwired to act in an anti-social way. That way leads to excuses and a failure to hold each other to account. If we weren't, we'd have absolutely no right to complain about Adria, given she actually shows more signs, however slight, of having the get-out-of-jail-free-card anti-social personality disorders you pretend to have,
Yes, by all means spam me now with all the arguments that claim that X11 is terrible because it's imperfect. I'm well aware it's imperfect.
But the fact is it's not imperfect enough to warrant throwing it out and replacing it with something that lacks the more awesome things X11 does. Yes, I know the counter argument here too: "Nobody uses/needs/wants the awesome things!" says Baby Bathwater. But look at what you're proposing: a tiny, inconsequential, performance improvement and possibly cleaner API, in exchange for guaranteed incompatabilities and the removal of functionality.
So, pretty please, knock it off with the Wayland/Mir shit, at least until you achieve feature parity.
The point of my comment is that alternatives to the car are not available if hostile anti-non-car zoning and planning policies are in force.
Public transport does not exist in any usable form in areas where zoning laws require that:
- Businesses not be built close to the homes of the people they support.
- Neighboring businesses be built at extremely low density due to mandatory free parking laws, thus making business areas unwalkable.
These policies constitute the planning policies of the vast majority of locations in the US, and have been since the 1950s. This is a major reason for the complete collapse, outside of a tiny number of large cities, of public transportation in the US. What's left is generally government owned, subsidized, and in most areas is substandard.
Oh, and any libertarians reading the above, researching it, and finding it to be true (because it is), and thinking "This is more evidence that BIG GOVERNMENT IS TERRIBLE", you guys are actually the problem, not the solution. Mandatory free parking is commonly promoted, not opposed, by the major thinktanks representing what passes for libertarianism these days. You might want to research why, and consider how it's "libertarian" to force people to use only one form of transportation, making it uneconomic to provide alternatives.
No, he's not, you are. I recall very few nerds being interested in Palm Pilots. Salespeople, on the other hand, loved it. In the place I worked at the time one programmer I worked with (in a team of about 15) had one, while every sales person in the office (about four, including the director of our division) had one.
There is no "fair use" right to copy a rented DVD or video tape, and I'm unaware of any jurisdiction with conventional modern copyright law where it's considered legal to do so without the authorization of the copyright holder. Certainly it's always been a violation of copyright law in the US, where Netflix operates.
And there's no case here where subscribing to Netflix is remotely similar in concept to broadcast TV. Netflix doesn't use the publicly owned airwaves, it's 100% optional, and it's delivered at your request, not at a time considered convenient by the operator of the service.
DRM on DVDs? Yes. That affects your fair use rights. It should be outlawed to put DRM on them, not outlawed to break it. DRM on Amazon streaming you videos you've bought? Likewise.
But DRM on movies streamed as part of a service where there's no expectation at any point that you'll "own" anything? There's little reason to be against it. Sure, it sucks that Netflix hasn't had the decency to produce a GNU/Linux version, and Netflix's subscription would be a tiny bit more valuable if I could temporarily space shift content for offline use, but the simple truth is that while those would be useful to me, I don't have anything resembling a "right" to have either in relation to that particular service.
Netflix (and Rhapsody) is a service that cannot exist without DRM. It's a rare case of a service where your rights are not remotely affected by DRM.
He never used the word "own". He's talking about Netflix, which is a subscription service where you can, for the life of the subscription, have the ability to view any movie in their library for no additional cost.
You have very different expectations on that compared to what you'd expect if you went to a store and bought a DVD, or went to Amazon and "bought" a movie digitally.
The solution to the "old people raising hell" thing is to change zoning and planning policies so people aren't forced to drive every-fucking-where.
Unfortunately taht's communism and UN secret plot #21 and "OMG nobody wants to travel by any means other than cars because I don't although I never tried and I live somewhere where car travel is mandatory" and so on, so we can't let it happen.
Wonder how much cheaper the food at my grocery would be if the store didn't have to subsidize free parking?
It's not uncommon to hear about ticket quotas but as I understand it it's rare the quotas are for revenue reasons.
As an example, in this part of Florida, it's well known that the local law enforcement groups have a much larger quota in October. Why? Because we're expecting an influx of snowbirds (older people who live in Florida for the winter only) that starts late October, early November, and local authorities want to discourage aggressive driving given the pending sudden change to the driving profile. Driving past numerous people who've been pulled to the side of the road by a white crown vic with flashing blue lights has a "calming" affect.
The police themselves try to avoid giving out the more expensive tickets. If you want to avoid a traffic violation, the best way, for example, is to "forget" some piece of paperwork, like your insurance card. The cop will then give you a "ticket" that requires you show your proof of insurance within a couple of days at the court house. You pay a small (like, $20) charge, and nothing goes on your record.
Given the relatively low amounts of money involved, it's difficult to make the case that traffic stops are making a lot of money for local authorities. It's easier to make the case that it's a control system, a way to discourage certain types of traffic violation both directly and by making a presence known.
Depends on how it's implemented. An obvious fix to issues with speeding would be for the vehicle's "speed monitor" to issue an audio warning when the speed limit is broken, and allow a grace period to get the vehicle back in compliance, again using audio cues to help the driver attain the target speed.
I suspect though the long term solution is self-driving cars, be it the Google version, or (my prefered version), the 200 year old technology that's comfortable, safe, popular, and yet punished by every government on Earth (who superficially "subsidize" it on occasion but still manage to suck out more value than they ever try to put in) at the behest of the numerous lobbies it competes against.
FWIW, you're wrong. Products need to be marketed otherwise we'd only hear about a small percentage of them and never buy anything that wasn't discovered and hyped by the media or something we'd heard of by the relatively slow and conservative word-of-mouth route. But let's put that aside for a moment:
There's no easy mechanism to easily support sites by using micropayments or anything similar.
Where ads differ from other means is that they're entirely passive. I don't have to set anything up to support an ad-funded website that I frequent.
And I'll add my voice to those pointing out that the problem here is not the principle but the ads themselves. I have no objection to websites putting static images and text around the content. But I flirt with ad blockers from time to time because of websites that insist on playing video (and worse, audio), that pop-up boxes in front of the content that you'd just started reading, and so on and so forth. Twitter has recently adopted the most obnoxious ad system I've ever seen, actually inserting the ads in the content, making them appear just like other tweets, so you're suddenly hit by a sales pitch in the middle of trying to follow your timeline.
All of these are obnoxious, and as long as advertisers seek to differentiate their ads from others by being as obnoxious as possible, and as long as content providers refuse to rein them in, the ad block war will continue.
What I'd like to see is that ad sellers change tactics and start to see themselves as funders of websites, rather than bullhorns for people trying to sell crap. If Google, Amazon, et al would allow people to pay to opt out of advertising, distributing the cash to the websites they visit instead, I'd be much happier.
The amendment describes a progressive tax of 1, 2, or 3 percent
Maybe I'm totally misunderstanding you, but as far as I can see it just describes a tax on income. It doesn't even require it be progressive, and doesn't mention any figures at all.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Slashdot Mirror
The ability of a government to control anything is independent of whether the scheme in question originated with starry eyed libertarians with a shaky grasp of economics.
If the government wants to regulate Lego, model railroading, soda, The Interwebs, the word "Milk", supermarkets, pharmacies operating in the open, and water, it is able to, and does.
Virtually the only way a government cannot regulate the use of bitcoins (and thus the currency itself) is if it chooses not to, either by banning it completely forcing the currency underground, or by ignoring it.
Well, X11's just a standard, not a bad one even if it probably wouldn't have been designed this way if it were done today. Mind you, of all the surviving GUI infrastructure components from the early eighties it's probably the only one that was built with THE CLOUD(!!!?!!) in mind...
On the other hand, yes, various implementations of X have been difficult to use, that is, difficult to install and get running. It wasn't until the X.org split that real attempts were made to make the system "just work", with previous attempts requiring people run scripts to make "sane" XFree86.config files, which in turn generally needed to be tweaked to ensure the system booted up in a useful resolution. Back in the early 2000s, you actually had to edit the effing text file and restart X (effectively a reboot in all but name given every single GUI program including your desktop would be closed in the process) just to change monitor resolution.
Still, I must admit having read TFA, I'm still utterly confused by the Wayland situation. Can we just accept that while X.org may be imperfect, it's still an extremely functional, fast, powerful system, and we can, and should, focus on it rather than throwing out everything and starting again?
It's illegal to mint your own currency. The last Wikipedia link includes information on that. There are legitimate reasons to ban it, and the Federal government does. So, actually, the person you're responding to is right.
You can, if you want, claim the law is unjust, that it's in the same category as laws against pot or non-harmful sexual acts between consenting adults. However, the government does have the power, and the right, to consider a different picture to your individual concerns, and believe that overall an action would harm the country and the people who live in it, and therefore pass a ban on the basis of logic you disagree with.
That doesn't stop them from having the power, they do, it just means you don't like it.
I, for one, will buy (good) games that run on a standards based platform that eschew DRM, running on any computer I want, and has the added advantage of not needing to be "installed".
Virtually all of T-Mobile's Android phones can route their calls over Wi-fi. It's not wonderful, and it's not the full UMA thing (which treats the Internet as just another tower - complete with handoff, which T-Mobile hasn't implemented in their Android app alas) but it does help significantly with the coverage issue.
No, it isn't. Congress has many possible justifications to legislate in an area while keeping it constitutional. Only one of them is the interstate commerce clause.
The fact they use it sometimes, and don't other times, with the approval of the other two branches, is proof that it's not the sole basis of Congress's authority.
It happens to be a very powerful clause, a much more powerful one than the founders possibly intended. As a result, some argue it's misused. The problem with the misuse argument is that, for the most part, commerce has changed radically since the late 1700s.
But it's but one source of authority, and Congress has multiple, from the specific (the copyright clause) to the extremely wooly and ill defined (the common welfare.)
Probably not. If people looked in 2D, then yeah, I could see it, but in reality your eyes have a limited ability to keep multiple things in focus at once. We don't care about that for the most part because we're able to change focus very quickly.
If a message comes up saying "Slow down, ice ahead", the reality is that you will take your eyes off the road to read the message, even though your eyes will still be pointing in the same direction.
I know I'll be modded down for this, but from the outside, it most certainly does look like a kind of scam. Bitcoin appears to be, essentially, a money laundering service, albeit set up by idealist people who have no idea what currency is or what it's trying to achieve who think that fiat money terrible (because GOVERNMENT) who thought they were replacing banks, not setting up a money laundering service. The two major players appear to be said idealists, and money launderers, with the occasional sucker brought in temporarily because they want to buy something that's also priced in bitcoins.
Suppose though that the outside view is wrong: It still makes no sense whatsoever. Money is created at a rate based upon energy prices and computer power, which means it'll never keep up with the demands of a modern economy. We abandoned gold, a similarly stupid system, for much the same reason.
I'd have more sympathy if I felt the major advertised problem Bitcoins were trying to address were legitimate. But for the most part, it's the misguided belief that the gold standard was a great thing, and that consistently small and positive inflation is terrible.
Is it successful right now? Bitcoin enthusiasts seem rather excited that the last few years have shown the currency to be getting more stable. At the same time, well, it would, wouldn't it? With austerity in most countries, including hidden austerity in the US (yes, Fed spending went up, but not enough to counter spending cuts in local and state governments), virtually the entire western world has seen their economies slow to the point that the flaws in Bitcoin's growth model haven't come to the surface. But imagine economic growth in the modern world coming back, and a serious rise in energy prices as a result, and... well, I'm pretty sure the drastic swings in value as the currency alternates between hyperdeflation and hyperinflation will make most people continue to avoid the entire thing.
Even if you are hitting the bare metal, the 1970s and 1980s taught us that you still tend to have something called an OS around, even if it's just a program loader and some kind of defacto standard for storing files.
This is worse than those people who confuse a kernel with an operating system, forgetting why the word "kernel" was invented in the first place. The term operating system is an umbrella term for a massive range of concepts, ultimately boiling down to a set of tools or concepts that ensure a user can manage the applications and data on their computer. That could, in theory, be entirely codeless. In this instance, it's not, there's Xen, and some kind of virtual hardware layer.
That's probably Icahn's plan.
The man was, IIRC, the inspiration for Wall Street's Gordon Gekko.
In my experience, no they don't. Many are socially awkward anyway, and some use Aspergers as a convenient self-diagnosis, but most (of the socially awkward) are simply smart people who may or may not have spent more time analysing and learning cool things than socialising.
In this case, the crude jokes that started it all, to be honest, would just have easily have come out of the mouths of salespeople, realtors, account managers, lawyers, and others at similar but appropriate types of conference. Nothing about the conversation - even as described by Adria - really suggests any unusual anti-social mindset by those involved. Indeed, Adria's unwillingness to actually turn around and tell them to knock it off with the lewd jokes, but decision instead to use a computer network to pillory them, would be more unusual.
And while it's tempting to look at the aftermath, with large numbers (supposedly) of apparent nutcases threatening Adria with every vile threat under the sun, including the R word, and say "See? Men in computing are especially anti-social and sexist", I don't think you can even make that judgment. We're a very large group, we represent every social and political group in the country, and it's hardly surprising that a bunch of right-wing nutcases would be part of our group too.
No, we're pretty normal, we're pretty level headed, and we shouldn't act as if we're some weird group that's been mentally hardwired to act in an anti-social way. That way leads to excuses and a failure to hold each other to account. If we weren't, we'd have absolutely no right to complain about Adria, given she actually shows more signs, however slight, of having the get-out-of-jail-free-card anti-social personality disorders you pretend to have,
While I see your point, I'm not entirely sure my computers have been trouble free for that length of time either.
That said, while Amazon's cloud may be as reliable as my PC, my Internet connection certainly isn't.
Can't speak for the GP, but in my case, yes.
Yes, by all means spam me now with all the arguments that claim that X11 is terrible because it's imperfect. I'm well aware it's imperfect.
But the fact is it's not imperfect enough to warrant throwing it out and replacing it with something that lacks the more awesome things X11 does. Yes, I know the counter argument here too: "Nobody uses/needs/wants the awesome things!" says Baby Bathwater. But look at what you're proposing: a tiny, inconsequential, performance improvement and possibly cleaner API, in exchange for guaranteed incompatabilities and the removal of functionality.
So, pretty please, knock it off with the Wayland/Mir shit, at least until you achieve feature parity.
The point of my comment is that alternatives to the car are not available if hostile anti-non-car zoning and planning policies are in force.
Public transport does not exist in any usable form in areas where zoning laws require that:
- Businesses not be built close to the homes of the people they support.
- Neighboring businesses be built at extremely low density due to mandatory free parking laws, thus making business areas unwalkable.
These policies constitute the planning policies of the vast majority of locations in the US, and have been since the 1950s. This is a major reason for the complete collapse, outside of a tiny number of large cities, of public transportation in the US. What's left is generally government owned, subsidized, and in most areas is substandard.
Oh, and any libertarians reading the above, researching it, and finding it to be true (because it is), and thinking "This is more evidence that BIG GOVERNMENT IS TERRIBLE", you guys are actually the problem, not the solution. Mandatory free parking is commonly promoted, not opposed, by the major thinktanks representing what passes for libertarianism these days. You might want to research why, and consider how it's "libertarian" to force people to use only one form of transportation, making it uneconomic to provide alternatives.
You didn't even try to read the summary, did you?
No, he's not, you are. I recall very few nerds being interested in Palm Pilots. Salespeople, on the other hand, loved it. In the place I worked at the time one programmer I worked with (in a team of about 15) had one, while every sales person in the office (about four, including the director of our division) had one.
There is no "fair use" right to copy a rented DVD or video tape, and I'm unaware of any jurisdiction with conventional modern copyright law where it's considered legal to do so without the authorization of the copyright holder. Certainly it's always been a violation of copyright law in the US, where Netflix operates.
And there's no case here where subscribing to Netflix is remotely similar in concept to broadcast TV. Netflix doesn't use the publicly owned airwaves, it's 100% optional, and it's delivered at your request, not at a time considered convenient by the operator of the service.
DRM on DVDs? Yes. That affects your fair use rights. It should be outlawed to put DRM on them, not outlawed to break it. DRM on Amazon streaming you videos you've bought? Likewise.
But DRM on movies streamed as part of a service where there's no expectation at any point that you'll "own" anything? There's little reason to be against it. Sure, it sucks that Netflix hasn't had the decency to produce a GNU/Linux version, and Netflix's subscription would be a tiny bit more valuable if I could temporarily space shift content for offline use, but the simple truth is that while those would be useful to me, I don't have anything resembling a "right" to have either in relation to that particular service.
Netflix (and Rhapsody) is a service that cannot exist without DRM. It's a rare case of a service where your rights are not remotely affected by DRM.
He never used the word "own". He's talking about Netflix, which is a subscription service where you can, for the life of the subscription, have the ability to view any movie in their library for no additional cost.
You have very different expectations on that compared to what you'd expect if you went to a store and bought a DVD, or went to Amazon and "bought" a movie digitally.
The solution to the "old people raising hell" thing is to change zoning and planning policies so people aren't forced to drive every-fucking-where.
Unfortunately taht's communism and UN secret plot #21 and "OMG nobody wants to travel by any means other than cars because I don't although I never tried and I live somewhere where car travel is mandatory" and so on, so we can't let it happen.
Wonder how much cheaper the food at my grocery would be if the store didn't have to subsidize free parking?
It's not uncommon to hear about ticket quotas but as I understand it it's rare the quotas are for revenue reasons.
As an example, in this part of Florida, it's well known that the local law enforcement groups have a much larger quota in October. Why? Because we're expecting an influx of snowbirds (older people who live in Florida for the winter only) that starts late October, early November, and local authorities want to discourage aggressive driving given the pending sudden change to the driving profile. Driving past numerous people who've been pulled to the side of the road by a white crown vic with flashing blue lights has a "calming" affect.
The police themselves try to avoid giving out the more expensive tickets. If you want to avoid a traffic violation, the best way, for example, is to "forget" some piece of paperwork, like your insurance card. The cop will then give you a "ticket" that requires you show your proof of insurance within a couple of days at the court house. You pay a small (like, $20) charge, and nothing goes on your record.
Given the relatively low amounts of money involved, it's difficult to make the case that traffic stops are making a lot of money for local authorities. It's easier to make the case that it's a control system, a way to discourage certain types of traffic violation both directly and by making a presence known.
Depends on how it's implemented. An obvious fix to issues with speeding would be for the vehicle's "speed monitor" to issue an audio warning when the speed limit is broken, and allow a grace period to get the vehicle back in compliance, again using audio cues to help the driver attain the target speed.
I suspect though the long term solution is self-driving cars, be it the Google version, or (my prefered version), the 200 year old technology that's comfortable, safe, popular, and yet punished by every government on Earth (who superficially "subsidize" it on occasion but still manage to suck out more value than they ever try to put in) at the behest of the numerous lobbies it competes against.
I got an ad for Hyundai. The ad network was AdSense.
I'm having trouble believing your story.
FWIW, you're wrong. Products need to be marketed otherwise we'd only hear about a small percentage of them and never buy anything that wasn't discovered and hyped by the media or something we'd heard of by the relatively slow and conservative word-of-mouth route. But let's put that aside for a moment:
There's no easy mechanism to easily support sites by using micropayments or anything similar.
Where ads differ from other means is that they're entirely passive. I don't have to set anything up to support an ad-funded website that I frequent.
And I'll add my voice to those pointing out that the problem here is not the principle but the ads themselves. I have no objection to websites putting static images and text around the content. But I flirt with ad blockers from time to time because of websites that insist on playing video (and worse, audio), that pop-up boxes in front of the content that you'd just started reading, and so on and so forth. Twitter has recently adopted the most obnoxious ad system I've ever seen, actually inserting the ads in the content, making them appear just like other tweets, so you're suddenly hit by a sales pitch in the middle of trying to follow your timeline.
All of these are obnoxious, and as long as advertisers seek to differentiate their ads from others by being as obnoxious as possible, and as long as content providers refuse to rein them in, the ad block war will continue.
What I'd like to see is that ad sellers change tactics and start to see themselves as funders of websites, rather than bullhorns for people trying to sell crap. If Google, Amazon, et al would allow people to pay to opt out of advertising, distributing the cash to the websites they visit instead, I'd be much happier.
Well, now you know what the reasoning is behind the first rule of Fight Club.
It's so you don't get taken out by a drone.
Maybe I'm totally misunderstanding you, but as far as I can see it just describes a tax on income. It doesn't even require it be progressive, and doesn't mention any figures at all.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.