But.. But... It has "theory" in the name that means that you are just not smart enough to understand and I am a super genius! If I use my patented off hand metaphor to describe it, I could get my own TV show! However, describing dork-ions seems self defeating.
The real problem I see with this approach is that it adds to the economic benefit of using worn out tires for as long as possible, which is definitely not in the public's best interest.
Yeah. I agree. You do not want people driving on unsafe tires and any tax on tires would incentive people driving on them for as long as possible. On the flip side, you could also try to incentivize proper tire use by giving tax credits for proper maintenance and use (tire rotations, keeping air pressure at optimal levels, etc).
Maybe just one more thing the police look for when they pull people over? Inadequate tire tread is the new broken tail light.
I like this idea, but on a 100k mile tire at $0.015/mile (the rate proposed in Oregon) that would be $1500 for a new set of tires (or $375 per tire if you have four tires and each tire gets charged at a fourth the rate). Given that a cheap new tire costs around $50, that would be a significant (perceived) price hike for new tires.
Agreed. It is an idea that has problems and I haven't given much thought into solving them.
But I think you would have to handle the taxes as a separate transaction from the tire. Consider something like a loan from the state. You pay back the taxes owed over an established time (no interest). Once paid, you are done.
You could try to incentive proper tire use by having little tire tax deductions to try and offset the large cost. e.g. Rotate your tires every 10k miles, gain $100 credit that goes toward the total taxed amount. Or ensuring that every month your tires are properly inflated you gain $10 (tire pressure can effect mpg too!), or some amount worth the effort (that doesn't make the system ineffective).
As far as the black markets, tax dodging, etc. Maybe something like car registration, proof you are paying/have paid. One more paper to drive with. Did you pay your taxes to drive on this road?
I am not sure. If someone has some ideas I would like to hear.
Do I have to pay another round of taxes on the replacement tire even though it didn't make it to EOL? Is the State partly responsible because I paid tax on the tires with the expectation that they would spend the money on improving the roadways?
I would guess you could pay a smaller tax if the tier did not reach EOL. I am not sure how that would be enforced so maybe it isn't practical (maybe give a cause for a tire replacement, submitting the old tire as proof, that could lower the one time tax).
I think the second question is a good one because this tax (and the one in TFA is about ensuring the infrastructure is maintained with a stable revenue stream). If the state is not able to maintain the roads with an adequate revenue source, obviously there are other issues going on with that government.
My state legislators actually asked this question and got me thinking about a one time tax on tires. It has the benefits of the gas tax (anonymous, based on usage) but the added benefit that you can approximate the weight that a tire will carry on the road.
During a purchase you could either pay all taxes up front and be done with it or set up a monthly billing cycle so that poor can still make ends meet without dreading lost tread. Once taxes have been paid you are done and do not have to pay that tax until your next tire purchase. If a tire is expected to last 100k miles it, it is estimated to carry X weight for Y length of time (miles driven) meaning Z dollars in maintenance. Tax = Z - any other road infrastructure income/subsidies (gas tax still in effect could subsidized the tire tax making it cheaper).
This could also help spur better usage of tires (keeping them properly inflated [increasing MPG], rotating tires, etc). I am not sure how to handle used tires. Also, this doesn't help if you have to travel on dirt roads or poor roads that wear on tires more than pristine new black top.
Just a random thought, I haven't gave it much thought after initially discussing it with legislators.
Had you bothered to read the article you would have found out that there is copious evidence of sexism in science.
I RTFA and I did not see "copious evidence" of sexism. It seemed like the author was grasping at straws to prove a preconceived notion. Seriously, the examples given boarder creepy/inappropriate but to extrapolate "copious evidence of sexism in science" or in the authors words "institutionalized sexism" is an exaggeration.
The professor who leaned in just a little too-close-for-comfort, not to everyone, but to one girl in particular. The student invited to an academic event one evening, only to find out that her lecturer viewed it as a date. And the one professor who always looked me (and the other young men) right in the eye when we spoke, but whose gaze always drifted downwards, towards their chests, when he spoke with the young women.
The professor who’d talk to a student professionally and politely, then stare at her rear end while she walked away....
The graded assignments that would have flirty little comments and smiley faces, only for the female students.
Gossipy conversations—about other people in the department, obviously—that would mysteriously fall silent whenever certain women walked by (but never the men).
And the way word choice would change ever-so-subtly—like how remarks were “ejaculated” instead of “uttered”—in the presence of certain people.
This is your evidence?. That doesn't sound like "institutionalized sexism". It sounds like a guy acting like a guy that may be inappropriate in a professional environment. Here is a clue, sexism, racism, agism, etc are illegal if someone makes sexual advances, ask for favors, etc; it is already illegal and there is legal action the woman can take to protect herself. The article links to some studies, but what is also frustrating about this topic, you can find studies to back up claims on both sides.
If you think the gender imbalance is the entirety of the evidence for sexism then you are likely part of the problem.
Or maybe the gender imbalance is due to other factors of a complex system. Maybe, what is described as "institutionalized sexism" isn't institutionalized. because in the authors own words:
Most authority figures in my field aren’t sexist, aren’t sexually harassing anybody, and treat everyone based on their own merits as people.
How can it be institutionalized sexism if "most authority figures aren't sexist"? The real issue the author is pushing is:
if we want to really change the culture of our field
Yes, because what you have seen and experienced is obviously the only reality of one methodology in software development. The only people that promote such a methodology is a shill because they are selling books. I cannot validate these claims but we all know its true. I experienced therefore what you say is wrong.
keeping in mind none of us have read the paper and that we do not know the background of the reviewer.
When it comes to social sciences, potential is a loaded word. You can have similar studies and conclude completely different results. Does hiring in science favor
men
or
women? Which of those studies represent the
39/100
studies that have not been reproduced and possibly wrong (poor methods, biases, justifications, etc)?
Is a shirt keeping women out of stem and is that shirt evidence of misogyny and/or discrimination or is it a complex issues that is hard to study because it's hard for a microscope to look at itself?
Was the underlying idea behind the reviewer legitimate? He may have said it wrong, but was his premise grounded in scientific inquiry? Is it ok to ask about gender bias in a gender biased research paper?
it's a false equivalence to ask for scientific rigor in science? if we were blind to the gender of the authors and reviewers, wouldn't you want the same standards and practices followed to further our scientific understanding of the issue?
MADD also had a small risk of leading to a war that would have killed most of humanity. We were lucky.
A war that was assuredly avoided vs. a war that could have happened. I would rather have been lucky playing the odds instead of the known alternative... A war that would have rivaled ww2.
If the Soviet Union and the U.S. had
I am willing to bet that if we were put in the same situation, MADD would win. Even the most selfish, sociopathic tyrant will not kill an enemy if it means suicide. Why would any future belligerents be different?
anybody who adopted a strategy of cheating and exploitation would be tremendously successful. There are a lot of dangerous people out there, and we have to put a lot of resources into protecting ourselves from them.
And that is why weapons can be good for a society. If a society has any worth. It is worth protecting.
During the cold war, a lot of American and Soviet scientists and engineers came to the conclusion that designing weapons systems that could destroy the entire world several times over was not a societal good.
Are you saying that MADD was not an effective deterrent to war?
Slashdot Mirror
But.. But... It has "theory" in the name that means that you are just not smart enough to understand and I am a super genius! If I use my patented off hand metaphor to describe it, I could get my own TV show! However, describing dork-ions seems self defeating.
Register the tire like you do any other thing. Proof of tire tax please.
The real problem I see with this approach is that it adds to the economic benefit of using worn out tires for as long as possible, which is definitely not in the public's best interest.
Yeah. I agree. You do not want people driving on unsafe tires and any tax on tires would incentive people driving on them for as long as possible. On the flip side, you could also try to incentivize proper tire use by giving tax credits for proper maintenance and use (tire rotations, keeping air pressure at optimal levels, etc).
Maybe just one more thing the police look for when they pull people over? Inadequate tire tread is the new broken tail light.
Do you have any research to back up your "dirt roads that wear on tires more" comment?
Nope. Pure speculation. IANATORE (I am not a tire or road expert)
Assuming safety is maintained on the retread. A new market that recycles a resource? Sure, why not sounds great! It doesn't have to be a black market.
I like this idea, but on a 100k mile tire at $0.015/mile (the rate proposed in Oregon) that would be $1500 for a new set of tires (or $375 per tire if you have four tires and each tire gets charged at a fourth the rate). Given that a cheap new tire costs around $50, that would be a significant (perceived) price hike for new tires.
Agreed. It is an idea that has problems and I haven't given much thought into solving them.
But I think you would have to handle the taxes as a separate transaction from the tire. Consider something like a loan from the state. You pay back the taxes owed over an established time (no interest). Once paid, you are done.
You could try to incentive proper tire use by having little tire tax deductions to try and offset the large cost. e.g. Rotate your tires every 10k miles, gain $100 credit that goes toward the total taxed amount. Or ensuring that every month your tires are properly inflated you gain $10 (tire pressure can effect mpg too!), or some amount worth the effort (that doesn't make the system ineffective).
As far as the black markets, tax dodging, etc. Maybe something like car registration, proof you are paying/have paid. One more paper to drive with. Did you pay your taxes to drive on this road?
I am not sure. If someone has some ideas I would like to hear.
Do I have to pay another round of taxes on the replacement tire even though it didn't make it to EOL? Is the State partly responsible because I paid tax on the tires with the expectation that they would spend the money on improving the roadways?
I would guess you could pay a smaller tax if the tier did not reach EOL. I am not sure how that would be enforced so maybe it isn't practical (maybe give a cause for a tire replacement, submitting the old tire as proof, that could lower the one time tax).
I think the second question is a good one because this tax (and the one in TFA is about ensuring the infrastructure is maintained with a stable revenue stream). If the state is not able to maintain the roads with an adequate revenue source, obviously there are other issues going on with that government.
My state legislators actually asked this question and got me thinking about a one time tax on tires. It has the benefits of the gas tax (anonymous, based on usage) but the added benefit that you can approximate the weight that a tire will carry on the road.
During a purchase you could either pay all taxes up front and be done with it or set up a monthly billing cycle so that poor can still make ends meet without dreading lost tread. Once taxes have been paid you are done and do not have to pay that tax until your next tire purchase. If a tire is expected to last 100k miles it, it is estimated to carry X weight for Y length of time (miles driven) meaning Z dollars in maintenance. Tax = Z - any other road infrastructure income/subsidies (gas tax still in effect could subsidized the tire tax making it cheaper).
This could also help spur better usage of tires (keeping them properly inflated [increasing MPG], rotating tires, etc). I am not sure how to handle used tires. Also, this doesn't help if you have to travel on dirt roads or poor roads that wear on tires more than pristine new black top.
Just a random thought, I haven't gave it much thought after initially discussing it with legislators.
Frogs?
Had you bothered to read the article you would have found out that there is copious evidence of sexism in science.
I RTFA and I did not see "copious evidence" of sexism. It seemed like the author was grasping at straws to prove a preconceived notion. Seriously, the examples given boarder creepy/inappropriate but to extrapolate "copious evidence of sexism in science" or in the authors words "institutionalized sexism" is an exaggeration.
The professor who leaned in just a little too-close-for-comfort, not to everyone, but to one girl in particular. The student invited to an academic event one evening, only to find out that her lecturer viewed it as a date. And the one professor who always looked me (and the other young men) right in the eye when we spoke, but whose gaze always drifted downwards, towards their chests, when he spoke with the young women.
...
The professor who’d talk to a student professionally and politely, then stare at her rear end while she walked away.
The graded assignments that would have flirty little comments and smiley faces, only for the female students.
Gossipy conversations—about other people in the department, obviously—that would mysteriously fall silent whenever certain women walked by (but never the men).
And the way word choice would change ever-so-subtly—like how remarks were “ejaculated” instead of “uttered”—in the presence of certain people.
This is your evidence?. That doesn't sound like "institutionalized sexism". It sounds like a guy acting like a guy that may be inappropriate in a professional environment. Here is a clue, sexism, racism, agism, etc are illegal if someone makes sexual advances, ask for favors, etc; it is already illegal and there is legal action the woman can take to protect herself. The article links to some studies, but what is also frustrating about this topic, you can find studies to back up claims on both sides.
If you think the gender imbalance is the entirety of the evidence for sexism then you are likely part of the problem.
Or maybe the gender imbalance is due to other factors of a complex system. Maybe, what is described as "institutionalized sexism" isn't institutionalized. because in the authors own words:
Most authority figures in my field aren’t sexist, aren’t sexually harassing anybody, and treat everyone based on their own merits as people.
How can it be institutionalized sexism if "most authority figures aren't sexist"? The real issue the author is pushing is:
if we want to really change the culture of our field
I am immortal thanks to denial.
Indeed, with statements like:
Most authority figures in my field aren’t sexist, aren’t sexually harassing anybody, and treat everyone based on their own merits as people.
How do we get "institutionalized sexism" from this?
Yes, because what you have seen and experienced is obviously the only reality of one methodology in software development. The only people that promote such a methodology is a shill because they are selling books. I cannot validate these claims but we all know its true. I experienced therefore what you say is wrong.
Did I miss something?
keeping in mind none of us have read the paper and that we do not know the background of the reviewer.
When it comes to social sciences, potential is a loaded word. You can have similar studies and conclude completely different results. Does hiring in science favor men or women? Which of those studies represent the 39/100 studies that have not been reproduced and possibly wrong (poor methods, biases, justifications, etc)?
Is a shirt keeping women out of stem and is that shirt evidence of misogyny and/or discrimination or is it a complex issues that is hard to study because it's hard for a microscope to look at itself?
Was the underlying idea behind the reviewer legitimate? He may have said it wrong, but was his premise grounded in scientific inquiry? Is it ok to ask about gender bias in a gender biased research paper?
it's a false equivalence to ask for scientific rigor in science? if we were blind to the gender of the authors and reviewers, wouldn't you want the same standards and practices followed to further our scientific understanding of the issue?
every State offers for non-drivers to use as ID?
It also costs money. So, if the primary purpose is voter id and that id costs money then it is equivalent to a voting tax.
This message is brought to you by Boss Tweed.
I can shoot around corners now?! Sweet. Hello Cool World, here I come.
As it turned out, MADD deterred a war.
MADD also had a small risk of leading to a war that would have killed most of humanity. We were lucky.
A war that was assuredly avoided vs. a war that could have happened. I would rather have been lucky playing the odds instead of the known alternative... A war that would have rivaled ww2.
If the Soviet Union and the U.S. had
I am willing to bet that if we were put in the same situation, MADD would win. Even the most selfish, sociopathic tyrant will not kill an enemy if it means suicide. Why would any future belligerents be different?
anybody who adopted a strategy of cheating and exploitation would be tremendously successful. There are a lot of dangerous people out there, and we have to put a lot of resources into protecting ourselves from them.
And that is why weapons can be good for a society. If a society has any worth. It is worth protecting.
Ugh, MAD not MADD.
During the cold war, a lot of American and Soviet scientists and engineers came to the conclusion that designing weapons systems that could destroy the entire world several times over was not a societal good.
Are you saying that MADD was not an effective deterrent to war?
Sometimes it takes fire to fight fire.
If a society has any worth, it is worth protecting.
the only place in the world where you can get an earthquake and a tornado on the same day now.
Sounds like we have a follow up to Sharknado! http://www.imdb.com/title/tt27...
another study confirms that water is wet.
Is there a school house rock video explaining in song the differences?
Petitioning the government for a redress of grievances and civil disobedience are two different things albeit similar.