"The government spend less money? You must be new here."
Have it too, even does SSL
on
Free IMAP On Gmail
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I've been wondering for a while if they'd roll out IMAP, but I was pleasantly surprised to see the supported SSL for IMAP. For them I'm certain the overhead is marginal, it's still a nice mail service.....if you don't mind the google indexing your mail.
Because it was a painfully designed website, and every episode I watched was sponsored by the Government's click or ticket campaign which is bullshit on two fronts.
What is wrong with the local municipality owning the means of distribution, but allowing anyone to sell service over their tubes? For the most part, the localish government makes the regulations regarding local franchises and competition already. It is actually more competitive than people think.
KeyChain. Firefox uses its own password manager and not keychain making it annoying an yet another non standard place to store passwords and data.
I don't know what you were talking about with Safari 2 vs FireFox 1.5 Aside from plugins, FireFox was slow to load, slow to render looked different. Safari 2 vs FireFox 2 the bar moved entirely toward FireFox with its plugins, just as fast loading the application, just as fast loading pages, but still no Keychain.
Safari on Windows has been hit or miss with our in house testing, but it is behaving like a lot of newly released applications. Crashes hard and often on some machines, works flawlessly on other machines of the same OS Base (Win XP SP2) Safari 3 Beta for Mac is MUCH faster than FireFox and has all sorts of little things that made FireFox more useable (search while I type) are now in Safari.
On the Windows side, it is just a grab to increase the user base of a browser that runs for Mac Users and iPhone users. If it becomes 20% of the total browser space, it can't be ignored like it is now (even though it is rather standards compliant)
Disclamer: I use Safari for surfing and Firefox for debugging.
The find by typing feature is something i miss when I'm not using firefox. However, the new safari beta has the feature and it is actually a leg up on the built-in fire fox functions.
It dims the parts of the page that don't contain the data elements your looking for. When I stumbled upon it, I thought I was in FireFox with the Safari plugin:)
As I write this using FireFox downloading PostgreSQL using Azureus, while chatting on Adium about writing a perl script I'm testing on my desktop. This was of course after I updated my time-sheet spreadsheet in NeoOffice.
If you're not happy with the Lack of Quality freeware Apple would love to help you get some. Blue Apple in the upper left hand side --> Mac OS X Software...
I pay for access. My ISP pays taxes on their revenue. Does that not count? No, and neither does the taxes you pay on the line. My ISP pays the owner of lines they lease. The line owner pays taxes on their revenue. Does that not count? No, and neither does the taxes they pay on the line they receive. My ISP pays other ISP's in access agreements. They all pay taxes. Does that not count? No, and I'm not sure if ISP service agreements are taxed like end user agreements and if they are, it doesn't count. The service providers make revenue. They pay taxes on the revenue. Does that not count? No. On top of the services there are advertisers. They make revenues and pay taxes. Does that not count? No.
Short story, it doesn't count because the government (city, state, local, federal) wants a piece from every transaction from everyone. On top of the revenue received at the end of the transaction chain. So the answer for "Isn't this covered by X tax already?" is always going to be no.
I'm one of 30 people I know shelling money out to Blizzard for WoW. I went to beta LOTROL and found no OS X client. I could boot into Vista on one of my machines.....but I'll just keep playing WoW.
You must attend, truancy. You do not have first amendment rights, Speech Policy. You do not have fourth amendment rights, random searches. On and On and On.........
All of those services are natural monopolies and are to the point where they are considered essential. There is a good case that the government (or a separate entity who sole purpose is to expand, and maintain infrastructure) should own and operate the means of distribution, and other companies should be able to offer services, or if you like the current model, force infrastructure services to be compatible via regulation. Common Carrier status was supposed to allow competition, but has been severely weakened in recent years to the point it means nothing in a lot of markets. In the case of the Telephone companies, the big G and state G and local G all gave and continue to give teclo's money because simply to maintain their current infrastructure, with little incentive to upgrade the infrastructure as a whole, just in areas where it is profitable.
Good! Then maybe companies will start using non-corn sugars.
Perhaps you forgot, or simply don't know that inflated sugar costs via high Tariffs and sugar subsidies are the reason we moved from Sucrose to HFCS (High Fructose Corn Syrup) Sugar subsidies are for another debate.
I go to a big Ag/Engineering school in the Midwest, Obama will be speaking at our school tomorrow. I'm lucky to live in a unique area of the US where the energy alternatives (mainly ethanol) are actually cheaper than the regular fuels because of all of the tax cuts. If he brings pricing everywhere in the US to the levels it is in my state (about $.02-.05/gallon cheaper than non-ethanol fuels) I'll be much more likely to vote for him.
Me too, I live in Ames, Iowa. And judging by your mention of Obama visiting, you at least live near if not here. Iowa is full of corn, and now full of ethanol production. Scary thing is, we've all be sold on ethanol, but it really isn't a good viable solution in its current form. Let me preface my remarks by saying, I'm all for ethanol as part of our Energy Portfolio. 10% ethanol blends are much better than the former required additives and increases the market for corn, while slightly.
We're tying our food supply to our energy supply, which is very dynamic, inefficient from corn, (When compared to other food products), subject to natural disasters and raises the cost of food and food products in ways that most people don't realize. Right now the big push in the US is ethanol from corn, if we converted all of our crop to ethanol and converted all of our cars to ethanol, we wouldn't come close to the actual demand. However, as we push more demand into the market the cost of corn is going to sky rocket. In the US corn syrup is used for anything sweet that is mass produced. The cost of corn syrup increases and the over all cost of foods increase. The cost of feeding chickens, pigs and cows up, which means the cost of meat and eggs go up. The cost of dairy goes up. All because we've change our food source from a food to an energy because it is being sold as the cure for oil.
At Iowa gas stations, higher ethanol blends receive subsidies and are usually cheaper than their non ethanol counter parts. Which is cool, if you ignore the subsidies cost at the state and federal level. Subsidies that place ethanol in a different tax category as gasoline and isn't subject to the same taxes as regular gasoline. There are many more negative sides and aren't just cost related.
The physics of the matter is ethanol is simply doesn't contain as much energy as gasoline and will actually require more to be burned, when compared to the same volume of gasoline.
Growing plants is hard work and is very seasonal in most of the US (like Iowa) adding to large (but seasonal) price fluctuation. Increasing the demand of ethanol also increases the amount of land needs to grow plants, increases the density required, fertilizer required and is considered by some (ironically, the same people who "care" about the environment) to be an environmental disaster in the making.
Mr. Obama is taking a rather popular (and uninformed) stand, and offering up a solution that has many problems that he doesn't know about, most americans don't know about and will probably never addressed either in a campaign or in the future, but saying "I'm all about this ethanol stuff" in Iowa is required, just ask John McCaine.
1) The current market doesn't account for the effects of usage on global warming. Those who extract, refine, distribute, and burn all that fuel are not the ones who will be paying the costs associated with climate change. They don't call climate change "the greatest market failure the world has ever seen" for nothing. The argument that global warming is man made and has a globally negative effect is something I do not have the ability to argue. However, why is it considered a forgone conclusion that climate change is bad.
2) The current market for fuel is heavily subsidized by our government. I'm not talking about direct oil industry subsidies (though they do exist). I'm specifically thinking about the way our addiction to oil fuels and distorts our foreign policy. 9/11 (and the incredibly expensive wars that followed it) would never have happened had our country not been so heavily involved in the Middle East these last few decades, and a great part of that involvement was due to the oil resources of that region. So remove direct subsidize (especially on an industry so mature and vertical). I'd concede that the true cost of oil is obscured, especially here in the US. I was going to say "Are you saying that extreme religious views were created and carried out by market for oil?" Then I realized, the answer is "Yes, the market for oil has allowed a Saudi Arabian incubator to grow and harvest these views." However, the market is already starting to adjust volatile oil conditions by using additives like ethanol (I live in Iowa, I'm already seeing the Ethanol equivalent of Enron being born) and creating cars (thought I think GMs is vaporware) that have increased fuel economy.
3) The market doesn't want to believe that oil (or any resource, for that matter) is finite. This is especially true for the oil industry, which would be greatly hurt if people were to believe en masse that they couldn't expect cheap gasoline for the forseeable future. Car manufacturers mostly go along with this, because they don't want to change the way they do business, and it doesn't hurt them if their customers are left holding the bag in a few years when gas hits $5/gallon.
Isn't increasing the cost of gasoline what is being advocated to beginning with? Oil is a finite resource. Oil is scarce. Hence oil has a market, with fluctuating prices. As oil becomes scarce, prices rise all on their own and they don't need to be coerced with even more taxes.
If we preemptively increase the price of gasoline, it will generate far more demand for aggressive fuel-efficiency technology than currently exists. I believe such a measure is necessary to ensure an early (and smoother) transition away from an oil-based economy. Are you seeing a sudden collapse of the oil market? If not, the market would already do what you're suggesting when it needed to as prices rise all on their own. Unless the big G steps in somewhere else.
You also criticize the idea of taxes in general. Yes.
Yes, a tax on fuel is going to have wide ramifications on the economy, generally making goods and services more expensive. I don't object to that fact, because I believe that such a tax would be a corrective measure, counterbalancing the artificial cheapness of fuel that exists when we allow fuel users to pass much of the cost of fuel use (climate change, for example) onto third parties.
More with climate change being man made and negative again. I'm also not saying that either is true or false, but assuming we are the cause and it is as a hole negative is interesting.
1) Fuel use patterns are more nuanced than the equation suggests. Wealthier people are more able to buy fuel-efficient cars, but are also able to live in the suburbs and take more elaborate vacations. Very poor people are more likely to use mass transit. While not an Iowian my whole life, there has been no city I've lived in that had public transportation that didn't take 45 minutes to get to work
I didn't say let the market take care of it, I said let the market take care of it after you put a high tax on fuel. Transport companies like to save money, and they spend a lot on fuel, so they have an enormous incentive to use fuel-efficient trucks and not waste fuel.
This Market thing that was eluded to earlier would already take care of fuel. It is already in their interest to increase the fuel economy of their fleets. Right now, there it is at a place where it is tolerable and profitable. Later on, when the market for fuel increases (if which is probably will on its own because it there is scarcity) the market will react and change things around. Introducing higher tax when the market doesn't create it adds burden on everyone, especially doing it to something with so much power in the economy. Not to mention the political issues of the federal government increasing the tax further.
It may also be useful to note that while our friends in Europe have been striving for fuel efficentcy, US regulators have been focused much more on emissions. Than overall fuel economy.
so they have an enormous incentive to use fuel-efficient trucks and not waste fuel.
I just wanted to reiterate, this incentive already exists.
And do you think taxing vehicles on weight, engine-volume and horsepower doesn't increase the cost of goods? Do you think employing bureaucrats to track and enforce the rules costs nothing?
Introducing yet another tax for yet another reason sounds silly from everyone. Vehicles are already taxed when they are serviced, purchased, fueled and in some places, used. Any tax introduced increases overhead as well as political pressures on the government to use their new revenue.
A fuel tax is simple & efficient: if you drive a lot, you pay a lot more; if you drive an fuel hog, you pay a lot more.
Yes it is fairly simple but federal taxes are rarley efficient. The point was if you do drive a lot, I.E. Move stuff. It increases the cost transfer fuel by rail to the truck and the truck to your shelf. Increasing the costs at every step along that line would increase the costs of every sector in the economy.
Also, as a political side note, taxes like that are very progressive and tend to only take large percentages of income from people in lower tax brackets.
Umm...you still can do that by car or by foot. So we have not ignored our forefathers.
Meanwhile, traveling unfettered in an airliner with hundreds of other passengers and carrying thousands of pounds of jet fuel is not a right. No serious person can claim you should have the right to prance onto an airplane without being searched
Excellent, we should extend this to include City Buses, which carry tens of people and carries hundreds of pounds of fuel. City buses are already affiliated or even owned by the local governments, what is wrong with allowing the federal government to force an inspection of my person for my safety and that of other around me. Those Taxi cabs pick up people every day that are not searched for explosives or firearms. I mean, any passenger could be going anywhere the cabby would take them without getting a sniff test or even a background check. This is a horrible breach of the publics trust and security. Anyone getting onto a freeway must be searched, because cars are an excellent delivery platform of terror. The government issues a license and you're already driving on a public road, consent to be searched is obviously implied. Since the streets are public areas and we know people carry guns and even blow them self up, anyone on the street must simply be searched and have their personal items checked for our safety..........just like when you fly.
You're really not giving the creators much credit.
The particular product that AM sells is actually sold now built upon another product which picks reassemble TCP/IP packets, pulls out the data, looks for a file format base on the binary data (not file extension) and tries resemble the actual file. If it is a media file it continually tries to play it looking for a finger print match. With configurable layers of fuzziness because of compression or noise added to the file. It is desgined to assemble out of order data chunks from P2P protocols (unencrypted of course). It really is a peace of work.
For video comment the process is about the same, however, it is 20x cheaper/easier to simply re-assemble the audio tracks first, the try for the video if you still can't match.
The current application for something like this, in production now, has a through put measured in 100's of megabytes has decicion times measured in 100s of milliseconds, with reasonable accuracy and is designed to work on a live network.
Imagine what such an engine could do with data that is at rest.
I remember seeing and looking at lab created diamonds in 1995. It hasn't been wether or not the can be created in the lab to be sold as jewelry or for industrial applications. It has always been unprofitable and will continue to be unless they found a really, really cheap way to do it.
Also remember that Debeers, among very few others, have already realized the possibility of alternatives coming to market (as jewelry). Hence the continued branding of Diamonds (The real kind, not the fake kind) into the mind of America.
Slashdot Mirror
So the solution to pollution is dilution?
It was in response to being attacked by mooninites.
I believe what he ment to say was:
"The government spend less money? You must be new here."
I've been wondering for a while if they'd roll out IMAP, but I was pleasantly surprised to see the supported SSL for IMAP. For them I'm certain the overhead is marginal, it's still a nice mail service.....if you don't mind the google indexing your mail.
Because it was a painfully designed website, and every episode I watched was sponsored by the Government's click or ticket campaign which is bullshit on two fronts.
What is wrong with the local municipality owning the means of distribution, but allowing anyone to sell service over their tubes? For the most part, the localish government makes the regulations regarding local franchises and competition already. It is actually more competitive than people think.
Apparently you never noticed the 6 Dollar USF charge on every telephone bill you got. It was on your bill, it has been on everyones*
http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/tapd/universal_service/
*With little exception.
Our plan to fix this bureaucracy is to make room and add more bureaucracy.
KeyChain. Firefox uses its own password manager and not keychain making it annoying an yet another non standard place to store passwords and data.
I don't know what you were talking about with Safari 2 vs FireFox 1.5 Aside from plugins, FireFox was slow to load, slow to render looked different. Safari 2 vs FireFox 2 the bar moved entirely toward FireFox with its plugins, just as fast loading the application, just as fast loading pages, but still no Keychain.
Safari on Windows has been hit or miss with our in house testing, but it is behaving like a lot of newly released applications. Crashes hard and often on some machines, works flawlessly on other machines of the same OS Base (Win XP SP2) Safari 3 Beta for Mac is MUCH faster than FireFox and has all sorts of little things that made FireFox more useable (search while I type) are now in Safari.
On the Windows side, it is just a grab to increase the user base of a browser that runs for Mac Users and iPhone users. If it becomes 20% of the total browser space, it can't be ignored like it is now (even though it is rather standards compliant)
Disclamer: I use Safari for surfing and Firefox for debugging.
The find by typing feature is something i miss when I'm not using firefox. However, the new safari beta has the feature and it is actually a leg up on the built-in fire fox functions.
:)
It dims the parts of the page that don't contain the data elements your looking for. When I stumbled upon it, I thought I was in FireFox with the Safari plugin
As I write this using FireFox downloading PostgreSQL using Azureus, while chatting on Adium about writing a perl script I'm testing on my desktop. This was of course after I updated my time-sheet spreadsheet in NeoOffice.
If you're not happy with the Lack of Quality freeware Apple would love to help you get some. Blue Apple in the upper left hand side --> Mac OS X Software...
I pay for access. My ISP pays taxes on their revenue. Does that not count?
No, and neither does the taxes you pay on the line.
My ISP pays the owner of lines they lease. The line owner pays taxes on their revenue. Does that not count?
No, and neither does the taxes they pay on the line they receive.
My ISP pays other ISP's in access agreements. They all pay taxes. Does that not count?
No, and I'm not sure if ISP service agreements are taxed like end user agreements and if they are, it doesn't count.
The service providers make revenue. They pay taxes on the revenue. Does that not count?
No.
On top of the services there are advertisers. They make revenues and pay taxes. Does that not count?
No.
Short story, it doesn't count because the government (city, state, local, federal) wants a piece from every transaction from everyone. On top of the revenue received at the end of the transaction chain. So the answer for "Isn't this covered by X tax already?" is always going to be no.
I love a quick post with no review.
:)
30 people using Macs....I know there are least 2 more
I'm one of 30 people I know shelling money out to Blizzard for WoW. I went to beta LOTROL and found no OS X client. I could boot into Vista on one of my machines.....but I'll just keep playing WoW.
Apparently you haven't been to a US High School.
You must attend, truancy. You do not have first amendment rights, Speech Policy. You do not have fourth amendment rights, random searches. On and On and On.........
All of those services are natural monopolies and are to the point where they are considered essential. There is a good case that the government (or a separate entity who sole purpose is to expand, and maintain infrastructure) should own and operate the means of distribution, and other companies should be able to offer services, or if you like the current model, force infrastructure services to be compatible via regulation. Common Carrier status was supposed to allow competition, but has been severely weakened in recent years to the point it means nothing in a lot of markets. In the case of the Telephone companies, the big G and state G and local G all gave and continue to give teclo's money because simply to maintain their current infrastructure, with little incentive to upgrade the infrastructure as a whole, just in areas where it is profitable.
Good! Then maybe companies will start using non-corn sugars.
y rup#Sweetener_consumption_patterns
Perhaps you forgot, or simply don't know that inflated sugar costs via high Tariffs and sugar subsidies are the reason we moved from Sucrose to HFCS (High Fructose Corn Syrup) Sugar subsidies are for another debate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fructose_corn_s
I go to a big Ag/Engineering school in the Midwest, Obama will be speaking at our school tomorrow. I'm lucky to live in a unique area of the US where the energy alternatives (mainly ethanol) are actually cheaper than the regular fuels because of all of the tax cuts. If he brings pricing everywhere in the US to the levels it is in my state (about $.02-.05/gallon cheaper than non-ethanol fuels) I'll be much more likely to vote for him.
Me too, I live in Ames, Iowa. And judging by your mention of Obama visiting, you at least live near if not here. Iowa is full of corn, and now full of ethanol production. Scary thing is, we've all be sold on ethanol, but it really isn't a good viable solution in its current form. Let me preface my remarks by saying, I'm all for ethanol as part of our Energy Portfolio. 10% ethanol blends are much better than the former required additives and increases the market for corn, while slightly.
We're tying our food supply to our energy supply, which is very dynamic, inefficient from corn, (When compared to other food products), subject to natural disasters and raises the cost of food and food products in ways that most people don't realize. Right now the big push in the US is ethanol from corn, if we converted all of our crop to ethanol and converted all of our cars to ethanol, we wouldn't come close to the actual demand. However, as we push more demand into the market the cost of corn is going to sky rocket. In the US corn syrup is used for anything sweet that is mass produced. The cost of corn syrup increases and the over all cost of foods increase. The cost of feeding chickens, pigs and cows up, which means the cost of meat and eggs go up. The cost of dairy goes up. All because we've change our food source from a food to an energy because it is being sold as the cure for oil.
At Iowa gas stations, higher ethanol blends receive subsidies and are usually cheaper than their non ethanol counter parts. Which is cool, if you ignore the subsidies cost at the state and federal level. Subsidies that place ethanol in a different tax category as gasoline and isn't subject to the same taxes as regular gasoline. There are many more negative sides and aren't just cost related.
The physics of the matter is ethanol is simply doesn't contain as much energy as gasoline and will actually require more to be burned, when compared to the same volume of gasoline.
Growing plants is hard work and is very seasonal in most of the US (like Iowa) adding to large (but seasonal) price fluctuation. Increasing the demand of ethanol also increases the amount of land needs to grow plants, increases the density required, fertilizer required and is considered by some (ironically, the same people who "care" about the environment) to be an environmental disaster in the making.
Mr. Obama is taking a rather popular (and uninformed) stand, and offering up a solution that has many problems that he doesn't know about, most americans don't know about and will probably never addressed either in a campaign or in the future, but saying "I'm all about this ethanol stuff" in Iowa is required, just ask John McCaine.
1) The current market doesn't account for the effects of usage on global warming. Those who extract, refine, distribute, and burn all that fuel are not the ones who will be paying the costs associated with climate change. They don't call climate change "the greatest market failure the world has ever seen" for nothing.
The argument that global warming is man made and has a globally negative effect is something I do not have the ability to argue. However, why is it considered a forgone conclusion that climate change is bad.
2) The current market for fuel is heavily subsidized by our government. I'm not talking about direct oil industry subsidies (though they do exist). I'm specifically thinking about the way our addiction to oil fuels and distorts our foreign policy. 9/11 (and the incredibly expensive wars that followed it) would never have happened had our country not been so heavily involved in the Middle East these last few decades, and a great part of that involvement was due to the oil resources of that region.
So remove direct subsidize (especially on an industry so mature and vertical). I'd concede that the true cost of oil is obscured, especially here in the US. I was going to say "Are you saying that extreme religious views were created and carried out by market for oil?" Then I realized, the answer is "Yes, the market for oil has allowed a Saudi Arabian incubator to grow and harvest these views."
However, the market is already starting to adjust volatile oil conditions by using additives like ethanol (I live in Iowa, I'm already seeing the Ethanol equivalent of Enron being born) and creating cars (thought I think GMs is vaporware) that have increased fuel economy.
3) The market doesn't want to believe that oil (or any resource, for that matter) is finite. This is especially true for the oil industry, which would be greatly hurt if people were to believe en masse that they couldn't expect cheap gasoline for the forseeable future. Car manufacturers mostly go along with this, because they don't want to change the way they do business, and it doesn't hurt them if their customers are left holding the bag in a few years when gas hits $5/gallon.
Isn't increasing the cost of gasoline what is being advocated to beginning with? Oil is a finite resource. Oil is scarce. Hence oil has a market, with fluctuating prices. As oil becomes scarce, prices rise all on their own and they don't need to be coerced with even more taxes.
If we preemptively increase the price of gasoline, it will generate far more demand for aggressive fuel-efficiency technology than currently exists. I believe such a measure is necessary to ensure an early (and smoother) transition away from an oil-based economy.
Are you seeing a sudden collapse of the oil market? If not, the market would already do what you're suggesting when it needed to as prices rise all on their own. Unless the big G steps in somewhere else.
You also criticize the idea of taxes in general.
Yes.
Yes, a tax on fuel is going to have wide ramifications on the economy, generally making goods and services more expensive. I don't object to that fact, because I believe that such a tax would be a corrective measure, counterbalancing the artificial cheapness of fuel that exists when we allow fuel users to pass much of the cost of fuel use (climate change, for example) onto third parties.
More with climate change being man made and negative again. I'm also not saying that either is true or false, but assuming we are the cause and it is as a hole negative is interesting.
1) Fuel use patterns are more nuanced than the equation suggests. Wealthier people are more able to buy fuel-efficient cars, but are also able to live in the suburbs and take more elaborate vacations. Very poor people are more likely to use mass transit.
While not an Iowian my whole life, there has been no city I've lived in that had public transportation that didn't take 45 minutes to get to work
This Market thing that was eluded to earlier would already take care of fuel. It is already in their interest to increase the fuel economy of their fleets. Right now, there it is at a place where it is tolerable and profitable. Later on, when the market for fuel increases (if which is probably will on its own because it there is scarcity) the market will react and change things around. Introducing higher tax when the market doesn't create it adds burden on everyone, especially doing it to something with so much power in the economy. Not to mention the political issues of the federal government increasing the tax further.
It may also be useful to note that while our friends in Europe have been striving for fuel efficentcy, US regulators have been focused much more on emissions. Than overall fuel economy.
so they have an enormous incentive to use fuel-efficient trucks and not waste fuel.
I just wanted to reiterate, this incentive already exists.
And do you think taxing vehicles on weight, engine-volume and horsepower doesn't increase the cost of goods? Do you think employing bureaucrats to track and enforce the rules costs nothing?
Introducing yet another tax for yet another reason sounds silly from everyone. Vehicles are already taxed when they are serviced, purchased, fueled and in some places, used. Any tax introduced increases overhead as well as political pressures on the government to use their new revenue.
A fuel tax is simple & efficient: if you drive a lot, you pay a lot more; if you drive an fuel hog, you pay a lot more.
Yes it is fairly simple but federal taxes are rarley efficient. The point was if you do drive a lot, I.E. Move stuff. It increases the cost transfer fuel by rail to the truck and the truck to your shelf. Increasing the costs at every step along that line would increase the costs of every sector in the economy.
Also, as a political side note, taxes like that are very progressive and tend to only take large percentages of income from people in lower tax brackets.
Umm...you still can do that by car or by foot. So we have not ignored our forefathers.
Meanwhile, traveling unfettered in an airliner with hundreds of other passengers and carrying thousands of pounds of jet fuel is not a right. No serious person can claim you should have the right to prance onto an airplane without being searched
Excellent, we should extend this to include City Buses, which carry tens of people and carries hundreds of pounds of fuel. City buses are already affiliated or even owned by the local governments, what is wrong with allowing the federal government to force an inspection of my person for my safety and that of other around me. Those Taxi cabs pick up people every day that are not searched for explosives or firearms. I mean, any passenger could be going anywhere the cabby would take them without getting a sniff test or even a background check. This is a horrible breach of the publics trust and security. Anyone getting onto a freeway must be searched, because cars are an excellent delivery platform of terror. The government issues a license and you're already driving on a public road, consent to be searched is obviously implied. Since the streets are public areas and we know people carry guns and even blow them self up, anyone on the street must simply be searched and have their personal items checked for our safety..........just like when you fly.
You're really not giving the creators much credit.
The particular product that AM sells is actually sold now built upon another product which picks reassemble TCP/IP packets, pulls out the data, looks for a file format base on the binary data (not file extension) and tries resemble the actual file. If it is a media file it continually tries to play it looking for a finger print match. With configurable layers of fuzziness because of compression or noise added to the file. It is desgined to assemble out of order data chunks from P2P protocols (unencrypted of course). It really is a peace of work.
For video comment the process is about the same, however, it is 20x cheaper/easier to simply re-assemble the audio tracks first, the try for the video if you still can't match.
The current application for something like this, in production now, has a through put measured in 100's of megabytes has decicion times measured in 100s of milliseconds, with reasonable accuracy and is designed to work on a live network.
Imagine what such an engine could do with data that is at rest.
I remember seeing and looking at lab created diamonds in 1995. It hasn't been wether or not the can be created in the lab to be sold as jewelry or for industrial applications. It has always been unprofitable and will continue to be unless they found a really, really cheap way to do it.
Also remember that Debeers, among very few others, have already realized the possibility of alternatives coming to market (as jewelry). Hence the continued branding of Diamonds (The real kind, not the fake kind) into the mind of America.
That is easy.
Show me where in copyright law, I can before expiration, remove my copyright.
Rush Limbaugh is that you?
You used all of his terms, you could have at least given him a cite.