So what happens when a believer converts to atheism? Did their IQ suddenly go up? The opposite argument can be made. If, as a believer, they were smart enough to drop their religious beliefs, seems that IQ and religious belief are not tightly correlated.
Nothing has to happen.
You can have a world with stupidity highly correlated with religion even with people converting to/from religion/atheism and without anyone changing their IQ.
If, as a believer, they were smart enough to drop their religious beliefs, seems that IQ and religious belief are not tightly correlated.
Only if religion caused stupidity. If it is just correlated, then there is no problem.
At the current rate of discovery, astronomers will have identified more than a million exoplanets by the year 2045. That means, if life is at all common in the Milky Way, astronomers could soon detect it.
Being able to detect planets and being able to detect life on those planets are 2 different things.
I would say that by voting for democrats or republicans, you are implicitly supporting a system that allows your vote to legitimize things you don't believe in.
If you vote for Obama, because he supports gay rights more than Mitt Romney, it doesn't mean you support killing people with drones, but it does support the 2 party system that uses your vote for gay rights into a vote for war.
I never said green energy was "unfairly" subsidized. I also never claimed "dirty" energy was not subsidized. I am saying that subsidizing energy production in general is bad, and in the case of green energy it makes more sense to subsidize research, if our goal is to make green technology efficient and viable.
Storing energy is not as hard as people think. Electric batteries are not the only solution. You can convert the energy to mechanical kinetic or potential energy like spinning flywheels or something as simply as pumping water up a hill.
Even if we consider electricity as a basic human right, it is still important to conserve it where possible. If poor people can not afford electricity, then a better solution (although maybe not the best), would be to just send them a government check for the difference in price. For example if a monthly electric bill for a family jumped from $100 to $1000, then send every family a monthly check for $900, and raise the price to $1000. I'll bet this will encourage people to start being more frugal with electricity, while still allowing them the freedom to use all the electricity they were using before, if they still want to.
They should instead allow the true cost of solar and other power sources be reflected in the price, by only taxing and subsidizing to account for positive and negative externalities.
That's what I said. The price of fossil fuels should reflect their true cost, and the government should tax them because they cause the negative externalities of pollution and climate change. If the price of gasoline represented it's true cost, I suspect many more people would be driving fuel efficient vehicles and using public transportation. The money from these taxes should be used for pollution and climate change mitigation.
Perverting the market through solar panel adoption subsidies is not a good solution. They should instead allow the true cost of solar and other power sources be reflected in the price, by only taxing and subsidizing to account for positive and negative externalities. If the government wants to promote solar, it should be pumping money into green energy research to help make solar power (and other green technologies) cheaper faster. It should not be subsidizing the purchase of current expensive and inefficient technologies. It should be facilitating the development of future technologies that are actually cheap and efficient (without subsidies).
In fact, if the government owned the patents for these new technologies, it would have the power to lease them royalty free, further spreading their use. We want these technologies to be cheap, and we want people all over the world using them and improving them. Funneling profits to certain private corporations through subsidies is not the best way to achieve this goal.
Ever since John Locke laid the groundwork for the Enlightenment by proposing that we are born as tabula rasa—blank slates—the idea that we are created equal has been the central tenet of the “modern” worldview. Enshrined as it is in the Declaration of Independence as a “self-evident truth,” this idea has special significance for Americans. Indeed, it is the cornerstone of the American dream—the belief that anyone can become anything they want with enough determination.
I think this quote from the article captures the view that I think is telling.
We are clearly not blank slates. Does that mean we cannot become anything we want given enough determination? I think this is the wrong question. I think the right question is "Where does our determination come from?" Even if we were "blank slates", and some of us succeeded (e.g. due to extra determination, etc), that would simply mean that those with more determination are more fortunate than those with less, and surely everyone would prefer to have more determination if it were possible to simply cause this through force of will (assuming willpower was fairly distributed among everyone).
So I guess what I am saying, is that whatever the real ultimate cause of success (whether genes, determination, parental support, luck, or all of the above), the one thing we can be sure it isn't is the person him/herself, if the word "cause" is to have any reasonable meaning at all.
The more competent people are in a skill, the less confident they are.
That is not exactly what I gathered from reading the wikipedia article. The article seemed to suggest that competent people are more likely to underestimate their skill and incompetent people are more likely to overestimate their skill. This doesn't necessarily imply that incompetent people have more confidence than competent people.
What is described in the article seems to indicate that a A 2 might think they are a 3 and an 8 might think they are a 7.
If you then take the incompetent people and make them more competent, they'll actually LOSE confidence in their skill level, not gain it.
This doesn't really make sense. This would mean that a brain surgeon with years of experience would have less confidence to perform brain surgery than when he/she was first entering medical school.
What makes more sense is if a medical student overestimates his/her (currently very low) abilities, and an experienced surgeon underestimates his/her (currently very high) abilities. This does not mean that you lose confidence as you gain competence. It means the *rate* at which you gain confidence decreases as you gain competence.
I've actually turned a couple of things that I absolutely loathed and avoided as a young adult into things that I'm passionate about now, solely because I decided to spend enough effort to get competent at it, and then it ballooned from there.
Just out of curiosity, what might an example of this be?
I can see how becoming competent at something might lead you to like it rather than hate it. But I think after a certain point, it is quite possible to really enjoy an activity even if you are mediocre.
If we take A: being good at something and B: being passionate about something, I don't think A causes B or that B causes A. I suspect there is a positive feedback mechanism, and in that way you may be able to cause an increase in B by forcing A.
But lets say for instance that to be really great, you need both A and B. One might be tempted to say these 2 attributes are equal even in the case where they feed off eachother. But what if B were much more common (e.g. 10% of the population) than A(e.g. 1% of the population). If this were the case, then only 0.1% of the population will be great (from having both A and B), but one could argue that A is "the deciding factor".
I haven't read Gladwell's book, but I've heard more than a few different radio programs on this subject (e.g. radiolab, freakanomics, etc), that interviewed Gladwell (although not exclusively).
One could argue that the point from Gladwell's side is that hard work and determination are more important than genetics, and I don't think this is an unfair characterization. Gladwell seems to phrase it slightly differently. That it is the love that certain people have for certain pursuits that gives them the motivation to *easily* put in the 10,000 hours of work to become an expert. Sure maybe some people require 22x as much *deliberate* practice to become a master. Maybe the person who only spent 728 deliberate hours of practicing spends 24 hours a day thinking and dreaming about chess (i.e. a lot of non-deliberate hours). Maybe the person who required 16000 hours of deliberate practice, actually hated chess and only did it to please his chessmaster father, etc.
Even if Gladwell's view turns out to be true, it simply raises deeper questions. What causes some people to love certain pursuits and not others. In the same way that genes can cause exceptional predisposition to skill of a particular type, isn't it just as likely for genetics to be able to cause exceptional love of a particular thing like chess, music, etc.
This deeper point that born with the love of chess *may* be a more important attribute than being born with a predisposition to be good at chess, for me, is not so much an empirical question as a philosophical question, if only for the reason that I think these sorts of questions are very difficult to answer empirically.
But if it is true that the passion for something like chess or music can be genetic (and I don't see any reason why this wouldn't be the case), then this is simply an alternative path for genetics to play a role in becoming an expert, rather than an alternative *to* a genetic path.
First of all, quote me where I said that all cells can't reproduce indefinitely!
You: "Mammals just can't fly"
Me: "That's not true, bats can fly"
You: "Quote me where I said all mammals can fly!"
Second was Copernicus' theory wrong because the planets orbited the sun in an elliptical orbit?
The parts of his theory that were wrong, were wrong. Some parts were right, and some were wrong.
Are you really going to argue that unless something is 100% correct, then it's false? Are you retarded?
The statement "Mammals just can't fly" is not 99.99% right because most mammals can't fly. It's 100% wrong. Any theory based on the premise that mammals categorically can not fly is going to be based on a false premise.
I think it's pretty clear who the retard is (i.e. it's you).
This is the most facile exchange I've ever seen. You are making a point which has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm saying. So some cells reproduce indefinitely; what has this got to do with the fact that at ~90 years of age, the cells that can't reproduce indefinitely, will degrade a persons ability to live?
Well considering that you have no changed your statement to avoid the same mistake that I originally pointed out, you must think it is relevant. Also, the problem is not simply that cells can no longer reproduce (as I have shown). There is a whole host of problems, from mutations, buildup of junk material inside and outside of cells, or even cells not dying off when they are supposed to (cell senescence) or reproducing way too much (cancer), in addition to things like telomere degradation. Your characterization of the cause of aging is an oversimplification at best and just wrong at worst.
This is the important context, which you seem to be happy to just completely brush aside.
It's not important. It's the simplified version of the story you might tell to a child to try to make them stop asking questions.
It depends what you mean by fixed up. Your definition of fixed up seems to mean being able to fix your credit and borrow again. Moof123 (who I was responding to)'s definition of getting fixed up seems to be preventing lenders from lending to people with bad credit and ruining their credit further. What I am saying, is that if your goal is to prevent lenders from lending you money, the easiest way is to just stop paying back loans (i.e. that your goal should *not* be to prevent lenders from wanting to lend you money).
In the context of aging, those cells can't keep reproducing.
It doesn't matter what the context is. Some cells can keep reproducing and some can't. In fact, in the case of cancer, (where cells keep reproducing), it actually accelerates aging.
I think it's time you enrolled in an english language course.
...says the person who seems oblivious to the implications of his own statements.
It looks like T-mobile raised their prices since I signed up for my plan. I was paying $22 for my share of a family plan which is $80 for the first 2 people and $10 for each additional person. $110/5 people = $22/person. And I was paying $10 additional for unlimited 4g.
Now it looks like the family plan is the same price but can have up to 6 people (up from 5), and each person gets 2.5Gb 4G by default, but to upgrade 4G is more expensive. 3Gb = +$10, 5GB = +$20, unlimited = +$30.
Honestly I probably don't even need 4G. I mostly just listen to music or watch 720p-ish video which seems to be fine on 3G.
Under the U.S. Constitution, Americans can’t be jailed for failing to pay their debts when the reason for their failure to pay is poverty. But in Washington and other states, county governments get around that by insisting poor defendants could find a way to pay if they simply tried hard enough. “You hear judges say, ‘Oh, you have a tattoo, you can pay,’” said Vanessa Hernandez, a co-author of the report. “Or, ‘Why don’t you just mow some lawns?’ There’s not a specific enough standard for whether they have the ability to pay.”
Debtors prisons are prohibited by the constitution. What we may have is some judges who are violating the constitution. Just because someone (even government officials) do something, doesn't mean it is legal.
I'm paying $32/month for service with unlimited 4G. Other people on my family plan are paying $22/month and only get 5Gb of 4G service before it is throttled.
I'm sure this is not the cheapest mobile service in the world, but that doesn't mean there isn't competition in the US. Even with only 4 major carriers, I am very happy with my service. If these last 4 service providers started merging, I would be worried that the lack of competition might be bad for consumers.
That being said, the mobile market (in terms of service), is not a free market. There are a limited resources (e.g. wireless frequencies, plots of land to place cell towers), that are regulated by the government. The barrier for entry by new competitors is very high because of this. I am not saying that the government shouldn't regulate these things. I'm saying that it is different than trying to start a competing donut shop or something.
Even in this very limited and only partially free market, competition has managed to eliminate the need for contracts and subsidized phones.
Food allergies, food-borne illness, etc.
Also If you are morbidly obese, a bucket of fried chicken probably isn't benefiting you.
I got sick in peru drinking local water.
You can actually die from ingesting too much water. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/1661...
Payday loans are a scurge on the earth. If you have to resort to one you are already financially toast, and all they do is suck you into a final debt black hole that is nearly impossible to escape.
Well if you are already "financially toast", then it's pretty easy to escape. Just stop paying back your loans. Your credit score will be ruined, and no one will ever lend you money again. So what? That's where we started and where you wanted to end up anyway.
We don't have a debtor's prison in the USA. The worst punishment you will get for not having money, is that people will stop giving you money. There are even limits on how much your wages can be garnished.
Alaska Airlines and the discount carrier Spirit Airlines were among the few holdouts, said Rick Seaney, the chief executive of FareCompare.com, which monitors airline fares. In a statement, Spirit Airlines took the opportunity to chide its competitors.
“Spirit is passing along all of these tax-rollback savings to its customers,” it said. “Some carriers have not been so generous and have pocketed the difference in taxes, in the form of higher fares.”
Slashdot Mirror
So what happens when a believer converts to atheism? Did their IQ suddenly go up? The opposite argument can be made. If, as a believer, they were smart enough to drop their religious beliefs, seems that IQ and religious belief are not tightly correlated.
Nothing has to happen.
You can have a world with stupidity highly correlated with religion even with people converting to/from religion/atheism and without anyone changing their IQ.
If, as a believer, they were smart enough to drop their religious beliefs, seems that IQ and religious belief are not tightly correlated.
Only if religion caused stupidity. If it is just correlated, then there is no problem.
At the current rate of discovery, astronomers will have identified more than a million exoplanets by the year 2045. That means, if life is at all common in the Milky Way, astronomers could soon detect it.
Being able to detect planets and being able to detect life on those planets are 2 different things.
I would say that by voting for democrats or republicans, you are implicitly supporting a system that allows your vote to legitimize things you don't believe in.
If you vote for Obama, because he supports gay rights more than Mitt Romney, it doesn't mean you support killing people with drones, but it does support the 2 party system that uses your vote for gay rights into a vote for war.
I never said green energy was "unfairly" subsidized. I also never claimed "dirty" energy was not subsidized. I am saying that subsidizing energy production in general is bad, and in the case of green energy it makes more sense to subsidize research, if our goal is to make green technology efficient and viable.
Storing energy is not as hard as people think. Electric batteries are not the only solution. You can convert the energy to mechanical kinetic or potential energy like spinning flywheels or something as simply as pumping water up a hill.
Even if we consider electricity as a basic human right, it is still important to conserve it where possible. If poor people can not afford electricity, then a better solution (although maybe not the best), would be to just send them a government check for the difference in price. For example if a monthly electric bill for a family jumped from $100 to $1000, then send every family a monthly check for $900, and raise the price to $1000. I'll bet this will encourage people to start being more frugal with electricity, while still allowing them the freedom to use all the electricity they were using before, if they still want to.
By all means make it a level playing field. But on both sides of the fence.
absolutely.
They should instead allow the true cost of solar and other power sources be reflected in the price, by only taxing and subsidizing to account for positive and negative externalities.
That's what I said. The price of fossil fuels should reflect their true cost, and the government should tax them because they cause the negative externalities of pollution and climate change. If the price of gasoline represented it's true cost, I suspect many more people would be driving fuel efficient vehicles and using public transportation. The money from these taxes should be used for pollution and climate change mitigation.
Even your ad hominem attacks are shit.
Perverting the market through solar panel adoption subsidies is not a good solution. They should instead allow the true cost of solar and other power sources be reflected in the price, by only taxing and subsidizing to account for positive and negative externalities. If the government wants to promote solar, it should be pumping money into green energy research to help make solar power (and other green technologies) cheaper faster. It should not be subsidizing the purchase of current expensive and inefficient technologies. It should be facilitating the development of future technologies that are actually cheap and efficient (without subsidies).
In fact, if the government owned the patents for these new technologies, it would have the power to lease them royalty free, further spreading their use. We want these technologies to be cheap, and we want people all over the world using them and improving them. Funneling profits to certain private corporations through subsidies is not the best way to achieve this goal.
Ever since John Locke laid the groundwork for the Enlightenment by proposing that we are born as tabula rasa—blank slates—the idea that we are created equal has been the central tenet of the “modern” worldview. Enshrined as it is in the Declaration of Independence as a “self-evident truth,” this idea has special significance for Americans. Indeed, it is the cornerstone of the American dream—the belief that anyone can become anything they want with enough determination.
I think this quote from the article captures the view that I think is telling.
We are clearly not blank slates. Does that mean we cannot become anything we want given enough determination? I think this is the wrong question. I think the right question is "Where does our determination come from?" Even if we were "blank slates", and some of us succeeded (e.g. due to extra determination, etc), that would simply mean that those with more determination are more fortunate than those with less, and surely everyone would prefer to have more determination if it were possible to simply cause this through force of will (assuming willpower was fairly distributed among everyone).
So I guess what I am saying, is that whatever the real ultimate cause of success (whether genes, determination, parental support, luck, or all of the above), the one thing we can be sure it isn't is the person him/herself, if the word "cause" is to have any reasonable meaning at all.
The more competent people are in a skill, the less confident they are.
That is not exactly what I gathered from reading the wikipedia article. The article seemed to suggest that competent people are more likely to underestimate their skill and incompetent people are more likely to overestimate their skill. This doesn't necessarily imply that incompetent people have more confidence than competent people.
What is described in the article seems to indicate that a A 2 might think they are a 3 and an 8 might think they are a 7.
If you then take the incompetent people and make them more competent, they'll actually LOSE confidence in their skill level, not gain it.
This doesn't really make sense. This would mean that a brain surgeon with years of experience would have less confidence to perform brain surgery than when he/she was first entering medical school.
What makes more sense is if a medical student overestimates his/her (currently very low) abilities, and an experienced surgeon underestimates his/her (currently very high) abilities. This does not mean that you lose confidence as you gain competence. It means the *rate* at which you gain confidence decreases as you gain competence.
I've actually turned a couple of things that I absolutely loathed and avoided as a young adult into things that I'm passionate about now, solely because I decided to spend enough effort to get competent at it, and then it ballooned from there.
Just out of curiosity, what might an example of this be?
I can see how becoming competent at something might lead you to like it rather than hate it. But I think after a certain point, it is quite possible to really enjoy an activity even if you are mediocre.
If we take A: being good at something and B: being passionate about something, I don't think A causes B or that B causes A. I suspect there is a positive feedback mechanism, and in that way you may be able to cause an increase in B by forcing A.
But lets say for instance that to be really great, you need both A and B. One might be tempted to say these 2 attributes are equal even in the case where they feed off eachother. But what if B were much more common (e.g. 10% of the population) than A(e.g. 1% of the population). If this were the case, then only 0.1% of the population will be great (from having both A and B), but one could argue that A is "the deciding factor".
I haven't read Gladwell's book, but I've heard more than a few different radio programs on this subject (e.g. radiolab, freakanomics, etc), that interviewed Gladwell (although not exclusively).
One could argue that the point from Gladwell's side is that hard work and determination are more important than genetics, and I don't think this is an unfair characterization. Gladwell seems to phrase it slightly differently. That it is the love that certain people have for certain pursuits that gives them the motivation to *easily* put in the 10,000 hours of work to become an expert. Sure maybe some people require 22x as much *deliberate* practice to become a master. Maybe the person who only spent 728 deliberate hours of practicing spends 24 hours a day thinking and dreaming about chess (i.e. a lot of non-deliberate hours). Maybe the person who required 16000 hours of deliberate practice, actually hated chess and only did it to please his chessmaster father, etc.
Even if Gladwell's view turns out to be true, it simply raises deeper questions. What causes some people to love certain pursuits and not others. In the same way that genes can cause exceptional predisposition to skill of a particular type, isn't it just as likely for genetics to be able to cause exceptional love of a particular thing like chess, music, etc.
This deeper point that born with the love of chess *may* be a more important attribute than being born with a predisposition to be good at chess, for me, is not so much an empirical question as a philosophical question, if only for the reason that I think these sorts of questions are very difficult to answer empirically.
But if it is true that the passion for something like chess or music can be genetic (and I don't see any reason why this wouldn't be the case), then this is simply an alternative path for genetics to play a role in becoming an expert, rather than an alternative *to* a genetic path.
First of all, quote me where I said that all cells can't reproduce indefinitely!
You: "Mammals just can't fly"
Me: "That's not true, bats can fly"
You: "Quote me where I said all mammals can fly!"
Second was Copernicus' theory wrong because the planets orbited the sun in an elliptical orbit?
The parts of his theory that were wrong, were wrong. Some parts were right, and some were wrong.
Are you really going to argue that unless something is 100% correct, then it's false? Are you retarded?
The statement "Mammals just can't fly" is not 99.99% right because most mammals can't fly. It's 100% wrong. Any theory based on the premise that mammals categorically can not fly is going to be based on a false premise.
I think it's pretty clear who the retard is (i.e. it's you).
This is the most facile exchange I've ever seen. You are making a point which has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm saying. So some cells reproduce indefinitely; what has this got to do with the fact that at ~90 years of age, the cells that can't reproduce indefinitely, will degrade a persons ability to live?
Well considering that you have no changed your statement to avoid the same mistake that I originally pointed out, you must think it is relevant. Also, the problem is not simply that cells can no longer reproduce (as I have shown). There is a whole host of problems, from mutations, buildup of junk material inside and outside of cells, or even cells not dying off when they are supposed to (cell senescence) or reproducing way too much (cancer), in addition to things like telomere degradation. Your characterization of the cause of aging is an oversimplification at best and just wrong at worst.
This is the important context, which you seem to be happy to just completely brush aside.
It's not important. It's the simplified version of the story you might tell to a child to try to make them stop asking questions.
It depends what you mean by fixed up. Your definition of fixed up seems to mean being able to fix your credit and borrow again. Moof123 (who I was responding to)'s definition of getting fixed up seems to be preventing lenders from lending to people with bad credit and ruining their credit further. What I am saying, is that if your goal is to prevent lenders from lending you money, the easiest way is to just stop paying back loans (i.e. that your goal should *not* be to prevent lenders from wanting to lend you money).
In the context of aging, those cells can't keep reproducing.
It doesn't matter what the context is. Some cells can keep reproducing and some can't. In fact, in the case of cancer, (where cells keep reproducing), it actually accelerates aging.
I think it's time you enrolled in an english language course.
...says the person who seems oblivious to the implications of his own statements.
It looks like T-mobile raised their prices since I signed up for my plan. I was paying $22 for my share of a family plan which is $80 for the first 2 people and $10 for each additional person. $110/5 people = $22/person. And I was paying $10 additional for unlimited 4g.
Now it looks like the family plan is the same price but can have up to 6 people (up from 5), and each person gets 2.5Gb 4G by default, but to upgrade 4G is more expensive. 3Gb = +$10, 5GB = +$20, unlimited = +$30.
Honestly I probably don't even need 4G. I mostly just listen to music or watch 720p-ish video which seems to be fine on 3G.
Please provide a citation. I have never heard off anything like this.
Under the U.S. Constitution, Americans can’t be jailed for failing to pay their debts when the reason for their failure to pay is poverty. But in Washington and other states, county governments get around that by insisting poor defendants could find a way to pay if they simply tried hard enough. “You hear judges say, ‘Oh, you have a tattoo, you can pay,’” said Vanessa Hernandez, a co-author of the report. “Or, ‘Why don’t you just mow some lawns?’ There’s not a specific enough standard for whether they have the ability to pay.”
Debtors prisons are prohibited by the constitution. What we may have is some judges who are violating the constitution. Just because someone (even government officials) do something, doesn't mean it is legal.
I'm paying $32/month for service with unlimited 4G. Other people on my family plan are paying $22/month and only get 5Gb of 4G service before it is throttled.
I'm sure this is not the cheapest mobile service in the world, but that doesn't mean there isn't competition in the US. Even with only 4 major carriers, I am very happy with my service. If these last 4 service providers started merging, I would be worried that the lack of competition might be bad for consumers.
That being said, the mobile market (in terms of service), is not a free market. There are a limited resources (e.g. wireless frequencies, plots of land to place cell towers), that are regulated by the government. The barrier for entry by new competitors is very high because of this. I am not saying that the government shouldn't regulate these things. I'm saying that it is different than trying to start a competing donut shop or something.
Even in this very limited and only partially free market, competition has managed to eliminate the need for contracts and subsidized phones.
Food allergies, food-borne illness, etc.
Also If you are morbidly obese, a bucket of fried chicken probably isn't benefiting you.
I got sick in peru drinking local water.
You can actually die from ingesting too much water.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/1661...
You can get a nexus 5 for $350 without a contract.
Payday loans are a scurge on the earth. If you have to resort to one you are already financially toast, and all they do is suck you into a final debt black hole that is nearly impossible to escape.
Well if you are already "financially toast", then it's pretty easy to escape. Just stop paying back your loans. Your credit score will be ruined, and no one will ever lend you money again. So what? That's where we started and where you wanted to end up anyway.
We don't have a debtor's prison in the USA. The worst punishment you will get for not having money, is that people will stop giving you money. There are even limits on how much your wages can be garnished.
Alaska Airlines and the discount carrier Spirit Airlines were among the few holdouts, said Rick Seaney, the chief executive of FareCompare.com, which monitors airline fares. In a statement, Spirit Airlines took the opportunity to chide its competitors.
“Spirit is passing along all of these tax-rollback savings to its customers,” it said. “Some carriers have not been so generous and have pocketed the difference in taxes, in the form of higher fares.”