If you read my posts on this article, I have repeatedly said that the GPS system is not the right system. That doesn't mean the solution is to raise gas taxes. False dichotomy.
This reeks of gas company influence because it is an alternative to raising gas prices (which puts more burden on those who buy more gas)
Remember the point of gas taxes: to pay for roads. Gas taxes are not meant to punish those who use more gas, that is just a side effect, just like sales taxes are not meant to punish those who buy more.
because it removes much of the incentive for people to buy fuel-effecient cars.
That incentive is more accurately termed a loophole. The reason gas taxes were chosen to pay for roads was because every vehicle needed gas.. so by taxing the gas you had an easy way to effectively tax all of the road users based (approximately) on use. Now that there are vehicles using no/low amounts of gas, there needs to be a new system to collect taxes for road maintenance. I'm not saying this GPS system is the right one.
I was under the impression that the transfer of goods from state to state could not be impeded by a state, only the Federal gov't.. For example, NJ could not say to another state "We don't want your tomatoes."
Looks like I'll have to do some reading later this evening.
Incentives already exist for that.. there are tax breaks in most states for LEVs and ZEVs (Low/Zero emission vehicles). Raising the gas tax would be counter productive because it would depress gas use, which would mean that the gas tax has to be raised again, which would depress gas use, etc., etc. Obviously there would be a point where people *had* to use gas and the tax would be large enough to fund transportation efforts, but that tax would be quite regressive and have a very negative economic impact.
No, that's not how it's done. In most states, transportation monies are taken from a transportation fund that is funded by gas taxes, transit fees, license fees, etc. The reason for this is that it only taxes those who use the roads/buses/etc.
and Reagan lowered taxes considerably in his first term.
Do you know what he did the year after that? He raised almost all of them back to original levels.
Oops. Conservatives conveniently forget that one, don't they? It wasn't called a tax raise, but a 'readjustment' or something similarly silly. If Bill C had pulled it, we would still hear conservatives bitching about it to this day. Just another example of the hypocrisy.
I'll reply here to all the "Bush lowered taxes" fools.
Bush didn't lower taxes, he just shifted them. Dunno about where most of you live, but in the Northeast property taxes shot way up after the Bush tax cuts and the unfunded mandate that is NCLB. Add to that an increase in gas taxes, vice taxes, college tuition, various other fees and taxes (think cable bill, gas bill, electric bill, telephone bill, DMV fees), reductions in programs like Pell grants, Section 8 housing, and other financial assistance, etc., etc.
Wouldn't it just be easier to just raise the gas tax?
No, moron. The whole reason the situation exists is because people are using less gas due to hybrids, etc. Raising the gas tax would cause more people to switch to hybrids, which would cause even less gas taxes to be collected, which would cause an even larger shortfall in the state's transportation fund.
This obviously isn't a good solution, but raising the gas tax would be worse.
This smacks of influence by the oil industry to hold on to its revenues while the people are moving to more efficient alternatives (hybrid cars).
Put down the pipe.
This is a state proposal to fund the state's transportation fund. Gas taxes pay for roads. If you aren't buying gas, you're not paying for the roads. They want to stop that. This obviously isn't the best way to do it, but to claim that the oil industry has anything to do with this is pretty far out there, since they don't stand to benefit from this proposal as it will affect all vehicles.
After decades of pushing for more fuel efficient cars, now they want to punish you for owning them.
No, they want you to pay for the roads like everyone else does.
Obviously, this isn't the best way to go about it, but they have a point. If roads are funded by gas taxes, and you're not using gas, you're essentially using the roads for free. They want to stop that.
Yes it was painful, yes it was scarring. But... coffee is hot. Really, really hot.
The plaintiff in the case was able to convince the jury that coffee kept at a temperature that can cause 3rd degree burns is negligent. They presented evidence that McD's kept its coffee hotter than any other nationwide coffee provider, knew that had caused severe burns and did nothing about it, because keeping the coffee hotter allowed them to stretch the life of a pot of coffee. McD's lamely tried to defend themselves by saying their customers wanted the coffee that hot.
Anecdotally, having worked at a Dunkin' Donuts, and having spilled a lot of coffee on myself, I can say that I never recieved 3rd, or even 2nd degree burns from it.
How about embedded reporters disclosing their whereabouts while in a military operation overseas (hypotethically, of course this would never happen).
What do you mean hypothetically? Geraldo did this with his fingerpainting in the sand and was canned for it. The government ultimately decided that his 'map' was not detailed enough to reveal any substantive information and did not prosecute. However, IIRC, he will never be embedded again.
Well your situation has a big hole.. no pun intended.
So the company drills a very deep hole into the ground and dumps a toxic slury down it.
Whether or not the process works at this point is moot. They've just dumped without a permit and are in violation of many laws. Your NDA cannot legally force you to withhold disclosure of illegal activities, and depending on your position within the company and the existing permits in effect (if any), you may be legally obligated to report the violation.
Whistleblower laws protect people who come out and disclose illegal activities. Whistleblower laws do not protect people who disclose internal company information when no laws have been broken. I'm not sure why your post was modded up.
the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, versions of which have been adopted by about 45 states, including California, prevents third parties from exposing information knowingly obtained from sources bound by confidentiality agreements.
Here we have a White House official who likely disclosed the identity of an undercover CIA officer to one Robert Novak (of CNN, and others) and/or Jeff Guckert/Gannon (of "Talon News", and others). Both have refused to reveal the source, and/or denied that they ever spoke to said official on the matter, and have not been prosecuted, claiming freedom of press.
Then we have some websites that have done the same exact thing, except instead of divulging an undercover officer's identity, they're blabbing about the next Apple product.
Apparently "Trade Secrets" are more important that National Secrets. Sad, sad, sad.
Design cost != value.. I would imagine that the 6 Billion you quote is the full cost of the bridge, including preliminary designs, environmental studies, seismic studies, etc, etc, etc. The actual cost of the materials is far less.
The value as a transportation link, on the other hand, may be far greater.
Yes and an even more dastardly example of this was right after 9/11, when Citibank (IIRC) threatened to move from NYC unless they were given massive tax breaks. I believe they then went on to get subsidy from the 9/11 redevelopment funds and breaks, as well.
For all the bitching that GOPists do about welfare, you'd think they'd notice the biggest recepient: Business.
Can we trust the people who control it today? Absolutely not.
Correct. Why is that? Because corporations control these things. Corporations cannot be trusted. Ever. This means Google, Apple, Enron, anyone. Never trust a corporation.
I thought this was Slashdot, a gatehring of people excited about new technology. Why do we mod up people who want to live in the past?
More like "a gathering of people excited about new, good, technology." These franken-phones, based on reports here, don't work very well at any of their tasks, which is why there is a backlash against them.
The best example of the converged device that STILL isn't worth a damn is the all-in-one printer which faxes, scans, copies, and prints... not a one of those does it do well.
Well.. I'm not sure what machines you're using. We have a Xerox DC220 here and it works really good for all functions. This machine is not color. A good color multifunction machine is going to be quite expensive, so you may have been priced out of a quality machine and maybe this influenced your thinking on this matter.
An office multi-function machine makes sense. Copying is Scanning+Printing. Faxing is Scanning+Phone, etc. A multi-function phone is different. Playing MP3s isn't at all related to making a phone call, which isn't related to a calendar, which isn't related to games, etc.
In the US this is perfectly legal. On generic brands it is very common to see "Compare with [Name Brand]!"
Also, there is the super bowl commercial from last year, with the Coke machine next to the accordion shop, and the Pepsi machine next to the guitar shop, and a "young Jimi Hendrix". You can imagine which one he chooses..
This would be more exciting if anyone at all cared about the grammys.
Yes, yet another example of slashdot logic: "If I don't care about it, surely no one else does!" +1, Insightful!
Hate to break it to you, but the Grammys get a lot of viewership and attention. Now, this specific award may not have gotten a lot of attention. But the term "Grammy" carries a lot of weight in the music industry. If someone can win a Grammy using only web-based distribution, it's a big deal.
Well, the point of my disclaimer was that no one is going to 'win' this discussion.
You like triggers? Fine, I find them pointless. Buttons will do just fine, thank you very much.
I like triggers for one simple reason: I like driving games. Playing a driving game with buttons just doesn't work for me, analog buttons or not.
Has it occured to you that you might simply be all thumbs? No offense...
Considering that I do just fine on the Xbox/DC, and generally well on the PS (I have gripes, but in the end I'm still able to play the games..), and did fine on the SNES, NES, Genesis, Master System, and computer keyboard, I'm not willing to entertain this thought at this time.
Yes, and it works like a charm. The amount of subtle movement that it allows in Metal Gear Solid 2 is amazing, it grants you the ability to creep around corners, move just the tiny amount you need to to see through air vents while you hide in lockers, etc.
This is done with a button? I have only played a bit of MGS, but it seems like all of these actions would be done with a stick. At least I would want them done that way, but my aversion to analog buttons has already been noted.
I don't like them on either model, they remind me of the Cube's Z button: feels like a last minute add-on, akward to use and rarely well implemented in games.
IMO, in the original layout, the B/W buttons are perfect. They are auxiliary function buttons. They are near to the 4 main buttons, but not far enough away that you can't hit them when needed (unlike the S layout).
The playstation sticks are also buttons, but as part of the whole "better controller" deal, they don't click unless you actually push down on them, and since they are placed at an angle, you never do this accidentally (I didn't know they were buttons until Ape Escape told me to use them).
Yes, the clicking action on the PS sticks does seem better. Since L3/R3 are rarely used, though, I don't know if one can easily compare the accidental click-rate.
I agree with just about all of your DC gripes. I didn't think it was too big, though, but as has been previously noted, I prefer larger controllers. I have no idea who designed that damn wire.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe you mean Hexavalent Chromium [Cr(VI)]. I do not believe that there is septavalent chromium.
If you read my posts on this article, I have repeatedly said that the GPS system is not the right system. That doesn't mean the solution is to raise gas taxes. False dichotomy.
This reeks of gas company influence because it is an alternative to raising gas prices (which puts more burden on those who buy more gas)
Remember the point of gas taxes: to pay for roads. Gas taxes are not meant to punish those who use more gas, that is just a side effect, just like sales taxes are not meant to punish those who buy more.
because it removes much of the incentive for people to buy fuel-effecient cars.
That incentive is more accurately termed a loophole. The reason gas taxes were chosen to pay for roads was because every vehicle needed gas.. so by taxing the gas you had an easy way to effectively tax all of the road users based (approximately) on use. Now that there are vehicles using no/low amounts of gas, there needs to be a new system to collect taxes for road maintenance. I'm not saying this GPS system is the right one.
I was under the impression that the transfer of goods from state to state could not be impeded by a state, only the Federal gov't.. For example, NJ could not say to another state "We don't want your tomatoes."
Looks like I'll have to do some reading later this evening.
Incentives already exist for that.. there are tax breaks in most states for LEVs and ZEVs (Low/Zero emission vehicles). Raising the gas tax would be counter productive because it would depress gas use, which would mean that the gas tax has to be raised again, which would depress gas use, etc., etc. Obviously there would be a point where people *had* to use gas and the tax would be large enough to fund transportation efforts, but that tax would be quite regressive and have a very negative economic impact.
No, that's not how it's done. In most states, transportation monies are taken from a transportation fund that is funded by gas taxes, transit fees, license fees, etc. The reason for this is that it only taxes those who use the roads/buses/etc.
and Reagan lowered taxes considerably in his first term.
Do you know what he did the year after that? He raised almost all of them back to original levels.
Oops. Conservatives conveniently forget that one, don't they? It wasn't called a tax raise, but a 'readjustment' or something similarly silly. If Bill C had pulled it, we would still hear conservatives bitching about it to this day. Just another example of the hypocrisy.
I'll reply here to all the "Bush lowered taxes" fools.
Bush didn't lower taxes, he just shifted them. Dunno about where most of you live, but in the Northeast property taxes shot way up after the Bush tax cuts and the unfunded mandate that is NCLB. Add to that an increase in gas taxes, vice taxes, college tuition, various other fees and taxes (think cable bill, gas bill, electric bill, telephone bill, DMV fees), reductions in programs like Pell grants, Section 8 housing, and other financial assistance, etc., etc.
The Bush 'tax cut' is a farce.
But at that time, they had roadblocks set up to ask everybody if they were carrying any fruits or veggies.
Is this true? I would think that this is highly illegal under our Federal system. Any Interstate Commerce experts care to comment?
Wouldn't it just be easier to just raise the gas tax?
No, moron. The whole reason the situation exists is because people are using less gas due to hybrids, etc. Raising the gas tax would cause more people to switch to hybrids, which would cause even less gas taxes to be collected, which would cause an even larger shortfall in the state's transportation fund.
This obviously isn't a good solution, but raising the gas tax would be worse.
This smacks of influence by the oil industry to hold on to its revenues while the people are moving to more efficient alternatives (hybrid cars).
Put down the pipe.
This is a state proposal to fund the state's transportation fund. Gas taxes pay for roads. If you aren't buying gas, you're not paying for the roads. They want to stop that. This obviously isn't the best way to do it, but to claim that the oil industry has anything to do with this is pretty far out there, since they don't stand to benefit from this proposal as it will affect all vehicles.
After decades of pushing for more fuel efficient cars, now they want to punish you for owning them.
No, they want you to pay for the roads like everyone else does.
Obviously, this isn't the best way to go about it, but they have a point. If roads are funded by gas taxes, and you're not using gas, you're essentially using the roads for free. They want to stop that.
Yes it was painful, yes it was scarring. But... coffee is hot. Really, really hot.
The plaintiff in the case was able to convince the jury that coffee kept at a temperature that can cause 3rd degree burns is negligent. They presented evidence that McD's kept its coffee hotter than any other nationwide coffee provider, knew that had caused severe burns and did nothing about it, because keeping the coffee hotter allowed them to stretch the life of a pot of coffee. McD's lamely tried to defend themselves by saying their customers wanted the coffee that hot.
Anecdotally, having worked at a Dunkin' Donuts, and having spilled a lot of coffee on myself, I can say that I never recieved 3rd, or even 2nd degree burns from it.
That's why the lawsuit was petty.
Says you, but you weren't on the jury.
How about embedded reporters disclosing their whereabouts while in a military operation overseas (hypotethically, of course this would never happen).
What do you mean hypothetically? Geraldo did this with his fingerpainting in the sand and was canned for it. The government ultimately decided that his 'map' was not detailed enough to reveal any substantive information and did not prosecute. However, IIRC, he will never be embedded again.
Well your situation has a big hole.. no pun intended.
So the company drills a very deep hole into the ground and dumps a toxic slury down it.
Whether or not the process works at this point is moot. They've just dumped without a permit and are in violation of many laws. Your NDA cannot legally force you to withhold disclosure of illegal activities, and depending on your position within the company and the existing permits in effect (if any), you may be legally obligated to report the violation.
Whistleblower laws protect people who come out and disclose illegal activities. Whistleblower laws do not protect people who disclose internal company information when no laws have been broken. I'm not sure why your post was modded up.
the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, versions of which have been adopted by about 45 states, including California, prevents third parties from exposing information knowingly obtained from sources bound by confidentiality agreements.
Here we have a White House official who likely disclosed the identity of an undercover CIA officer to one Robert Novak (of CNN, and others) and/or Jeff Guckert/Gannon (of "Talon News", and others). Both have refused to reveal the source, and/or denied that they ever spoke to said official on the matter, and have not been prosecuted, claiming freedom of press.
Then we have some websites that have done the same exact thing, except instead of divulging an undercover officer's identity, they're blabbing about the next Apple product.
Apparently "Trade Secrets" are more important that National Secrets. Sad, sad, sad.
Design cost != value.. I would imagine that the 6 Billion you quote is the full cost of the bridge, including preliminary designs, environmental studies, seismic studies, etc, etc, etc. The actual cost of the materials is far less.
The value as a transportation link, on the other hand, may be far greater.
When the corporation becomes government... Then you have slavery.
More accurately, you have Fascism.
Yes and an even more dastardly example of this was right after 9/11, when Citibank (IIRC) threatened to move from NYC unless they were given massive tax breaks. I believe they then went on to get subsidy from the 9/11 redevelopment funds and breaks, as well.
For all the bitching that GOPists do about welfare, you'd think they'd notice the biggest recepient: Business.
Can we trust the people who control it today? Absolutely not.
Correct. Why is that? Because corporations control these things. Corporations cannot be trusted. Ever. This means Google, Apple, Enron, anyone. Never trust a corporation.
I thought this was Slashdot, a gatehring of people excited about new technology. Why do we mod up people who want to live in the past?
More like "a gathering of people excited about new, good, technology." These franken-phones, based on reports here, don't work very well at any of their tasks, which is why there is a backlash against them.
The best example of the converged device that STILL isn't worth a damn is the all-in-one printer which faxes, scans, copies, and prints... not a one of those does it do well.
Well.. I'm not sure what machines you're using. We have a Xerox DC220 here and it works really good for all functions. This machine is not color. A good color multifunction machine is going to be quite expensive, so you may have been priced out of a quality machine and maybe this influenced your thinking on this matter.
An office multi-function machine makes sense. Copying is Scanning+Printing. Faxing is Scanning+Phone, etc. A multi-function phone is different. Playing MP3s isn't at all related to making a phone call, which isn't related to a calendar, which isn't related to games, etc.
In the US this is perfectly legal. On generic brands it is very common to see "Compare with [Name Brand]!"
Also, there is the super bowl commercial from last year, with the Coke machine next to the accordion shop, and the Pepsi machine next to the guitar shop, and a "young Jimi Hendrix". You can imagine which one he chooses..
This would be more exciting if anyone at all cared about the grammys.
Yes, yet another example of slashdot logic: "If I don't care about it, surely no one else does!" +1, Insightful!
Hate to break it to you, but the Grammys get a lot of viewership and attention. Now, this specific award may not have gotten a lot of attention. But the term "Grammy" carries a lot of weight in the music industry. If someone can win a Grammy using only web-based distribution, it's a big deal.
Well, you didn't put that aside for long...
Well, the point of my disclaimer was that no one is going to 'win' this discussion.
You like triggers? Fine, I find them pointless. Buttons will do just fine, thank you very much.
I like triggers for one simple reason: I like driving games. Playing a driving game with buttons just doesn't work for me, analog buttons or not.
Has it occured to you that you might simply be all thumbs? No offense...
Considering that I do just fine on the Xbox/DC, and generally well on the PS (I have gripes, but in the end I'm still able to play the games..), and did fine on the SNES, NES, Genesis, Master System, and computer keyboard, I'm not willing to entertain this thought at this time.
Yes, and it works like a charm. The amount of subtle movement that it allows in Metal Gear Solid 2 is amazing, it grants you the ability to creep around corners, move just the tiny amount you need to to see through air vents while you hide in lockers, etc.
This is done with a button? I have only played a bit of MGS, but it seems like all of these actions would be done with a stick. At least I would want them done that way, but my aversion to analog buttons has already been noted.
I don't like them on either model, they remind me of the Cube's Z button: feels like a last minute add-on, akward to use and rarely well implemented in games.
IMO, in the original layout, the B/W buttons are perfect. They are auxiliary function buttons. They are near to the 4 main buttons, but not far enough away that you can't hit them when needed (unlike the S layout).
The playstation sticks are also buttons, but as part of the whole "better controller" deal, they don't click unless you actually push down on them, and since they are placed at an angle, you never do this accidentally (I didn't know they were buttons until Ape Escape told me to use them).
Yes, the clicking action on the PS sticks does seem better. Since L3/R3 are rarely used, though, I don't know if one can easily compare the accidental click-rate.
I agree with just about all of your DC gripes. I didn't think it was too big, though, but as has been previously noted, I prefer larger controllers. I have no idea who designed that damn wire.