We know that some time between zero and 1,135 weeks, that collection of cells becomes a person. What event or date would you suggest is the proper cutoff, and why?
The problem with fuel taxes is similar to the problem with tobacco taxes. You set up policies to reduce consumption...
Stop right there, because you're already wrong.
The fuel tax is not designed to reduce consumption; it's designed to pay for the roads. And the entire amount of revenue from it does get spent on the roads, and then some general fund money also gets spent on the roads (subsidizing them), and then there are still potholes because even all that money is still less than the cost of all the maintenance the roads actually need!
My state for example is building a high speed rail line from Los Angeles to San Francisco at a cost of probably over 100 billion dollars. Do we need it? No. We have air traffic between these destinations that is faster, cheaper, more flexible, and has radically lower maintenance costs.
Ah, California, the land of fruits and nuts. Perhaps the raiding-the-gas-tax problems you're talking about are a state thing, 'cause they don't happen Federally or here in Georgia.
$90K/year (also mentioned in the article) at 80 hours/week works out to $22.50/hour. I made that much on my first real job out of college, in a down market, in a low-cost-of-living area (and I still considered myself underpaid!). Sure makes me feel better...
The words are under copyright because Tolkien created them and defined their associated meaning. You would be perfectly fine with using the script (typefaces are not subject to copyright in the US, they are in the UK) but because all of the meanings for the words come from Tolkien having defined a combination of sounds/letters as "meaning" something a translation would be a derivative of Tolkien's creative work.
I don't buy that argument at all. If that were true, then people would also be able to copyright new English words they coined.
But the specification is not the language. The specification is a description of the language, but that's not the same as the language itself. Anybody else is free to write their own specification that's functionally equivalent but described differently.
Of course, I'd argue that it's unreasonable and unethical to charge for access to an official standard (in the same way it would be unethical to charge for access to the text of a law), but that's a different discussion.
And who says Tolkein's Elvish is copyrighted anyway? His description of it could be copyrighted, sure, but that's not the same as copyrighting the language itself. Don't tell me some dumbass judge granted an injunction on other people writing elvish grammar books...
I need you to stop undermining it's extraction and making it artifically more expensive...If you want gas to be more expensive that's fine.
You just refuse to get the point, don't you? Go re-read my post, and respond to what I actually said, mmkay?
Wait, you're too stupid to manage that. Maybe using small words will work: I don't want gas to be more expensive than it has to be; I just want us to STILL HAVE SOME when we will REALLY need it IN THE FUTURE!
Sure, we could sell off all our reserves at $100/barrel today, but then we'd be stuck paying Saudi Arabia $1000/barrel in 2020. Instead, we should buy Saudi oil at $100/barrel today, and make everyone else pay us $1000/barrel in 2020. Only shortsighted morons (such as your self) would pick the first option!
Besides, this conversation was originally about the gas tax. We're already using all of it for maintaining the roads, and it's still not enough. Where do you suggest we get more money?
Right about the point you started whining about making gas cheaper, i.e., subsidizing it.
How about you answer the question of where did I say I wanted to screw with the energy supply?! All I did was explain what's going on with the gas tax, and you attack me no apparent reason!
First you fail at reading comprehension, then you careen into an irrelevant tirade that reads as if it were pulled straight out of Glen Beck's ass. Clearly, you're one of the dumbasses who cause so many of the problems in our country by voting in demagogues instead of people with actual solutions.
Here's a newsflash for you: continuing to try to solve congestion by increasing road capacity doesn't work. All it does is give people an excuse to sprawl even further out into the exurbs, making the problem worse than before. This is not an issue of ideology; it's an issue of economic feasibility. It cannot be done. We can't afford it!
And here's another newsflash: You think people are fighting over energy now? You ain't seen nothin' yet! Just wait another decade or so, when the oil really starts to become scarce. Then the folks who still have reserves will survive, and the folks that squandered it won't. Nobody wants energy to be expensive out of spite or principle or anything ridiculous like that; they just think it's worth a relatively little pain now in order to not be fucked in the long run. You know who is a leader in alternative fuels research? The US Military. You know why? It's not because they're tree-hugging hippies; it's because ending reliance on fossil fuels is an issue of goddamn national security!
Pop Quiz: You're running out of oil. Do you:
A) Conserve what you have left while researching alternatives, or
B) Use it up even faster, so that you'll be extra screwed when it runs out?
This should not be a difficult question!
You may not like it, but I refuse to mortgage my future so that you can drive your 4x4 mommy-mobile 50 miles from bumfuck nowhere to the city and back everyday!
What's wrong with considering another country a "rival?" Like it or not, the world is a competitive environment (even for Communists). Therefore, there are only a few possibilities for the relationship between countries: they can be rivals, teammates, dominating winners or hopeless losers. Given that framework, how would you describe the US's relationship with China?
So, you're going to complain about potholes and you're going to complain about paying your fair share to fix the potholes? Fuck you; you just want a free lunch!
Oh like cars in the 50s were light? Have you seen what a 1956 Cadillac looks like? It's an all steel boat on wheels. Don't tell me the cars today are too heavy
The 50s Cadillac weighed the same, but it paid more than twice as much fuel tax, since it was so much less efficient and fuel is taxed per gallon, not per dollar.
I can assure you that the vast majority of the gas tax does in fact go to building and maintaining roads. The problem is that the gas tax is paid per gallon, not per dollar (so that it doesn't rise with inflation) and hasn't been increased in decades. It varies by jurisdiction, but around here we're spending somewhere around half as much as we did 20 or 30 years ago, adjusted for inflation. The fact that materials and construction costs are increasing at a rate considerably faster than general inflation only exacerbates the problem.
In other words, our roads are resembling post-apocalyptic moonscapes not because we're misappropriating the funds to build transit (Ha! As if the suburban and rural politicians would ever let that fly anyway -- the very thought is absurd!), but rather because we collectively refuse to pay the cost to maintain them in the name of "cheap gas."
I don't know whether to be pissed off that they're spreading falsehoods across the world, or happy that they're sabotaging a rival country's scientific progress!
Not sure about Discovery networks, but Food/Cooking/HGTV/DIY tend to have full episodes available to stream online these days.
I've got satellite right now too, but I'm hoping to drop it in favor of streaming. I also ran across a device -- I can't remember what it's called right now, but I think it starts with a "C" -- that's supposed to provide an easy-to-use TV interface for all those sorts of things (along with Hulu, Netflix, etc).
Slashdot Mirror
Two weeks ago at Atlanta-area Kroger stores, milk went on sale for $1 per half gallon.
Granted, it doesn't happen often (and the normal price is $2.99/gallon, and goes up to $3.29 occasionally), but it does happen.
You're at the wrong school, then (or not actually majoring in CS?). A good school wouldn't waste your time like that.
You know how kids stereotypically get in trouble for hiding comic books behind their textbooks? Yeah, for me it was Star Trek novels...
How about "when it can survive on its own?"
Stop right there, because you're already wrong.
The fuel tax is not designed to reduce consumption; it's designed to pay for the roads. And the entire amount of revenue from it does get spent on the roads, and then some general fund money also gets spent on the roads (subsidizing them), and then there are still potholes because even all that money is still less than the cost of all the maintenance the roads actually need!
Ah, California, the land of fruits and nuts. Perhaps the raiding-the-gas-tax problems you're talking about are a state thing, 'cause they don't happen Federally or here in Georgia.
He should have replied "why should it matter; do I not get equal protection regardless of whether I am Perry Mason or not?"
$90K/year (also mentioned in the article) at 80 hours/week works out to $22.50/hour. I made that much on my first real job out of college, in a down market, in a low-cost-of-living area (and I still considered myself underpaid!). Sure makes me feel better...
WHAT interference?! Seriously, quote where I said I was trying to interfere with anything whatsoever!
And then when you realize you can't quote me because I didn't say it, please fuck off and die!
Not a braille typewriter (although it could still run out of paper).
I don't buy that argument at all. If that were true, then people would also be able to copyright new English words they coined.
But the specification is not the language. The specification is a description of the language, but that's not the same as the language itself. Anybody else is free to write their own specification that's functionally equivalent but described differently.
Of course, I'd argue that it's unreasonable and unethical to charge for access to an official standard (in the same way it would be unethical to charge for access to the text of a law), but that's a different discussion.
If anything, a programming language is like an invention. It makes more sense for it to be patentable, not copyrightable.
Of course, language shouldn't be patentable either; it should be like math.
And who says Tolkein's Elvish is copyrighted anyway? His description of it could be copyrighted, sure, but that's not the same as copyrighting the language itself. Don't tell me some dumbass judge granted an injunction on other people writing elvish grammar books...
You just refuse to get the point, don't you? Go re-read my post, and respond to what I actually said, mmkay?
Wait, you're too stupid to manage that. Maybe using small words will work: I don't want gas to be more expensive than it has to be; I just want us to STILL HAVE SOME when we will REALLY need it IN THE FUTURE!
Sure, we could sell off all our reserves at $100/barrel today, but then we'd be stuck paying Saudi Arabia $1000/barrel in 2020. Instead, we should buy Saudi oil at $100/barrel today, and make everyone else pay us $1000/barrel in 2020. Only shortsighted morons (such as your self) would pick the first option!
Besides, this conversation was originally about the gas tax. We're already using all of it for maintaining the roads, and it's still not enough. Where do you suggest we get more money?
Right about the point you started whining about making gas cheaper, i.e., subsidizing it.
How about you answer the question of where did I say I wanted to screw with the energy supply?! All I did was explain what's going on with the gas tax, and you attack me no apparent reason!
First you fail at reading comprehension, then you careen into an irrelevant tirade that reads as if it were pulled straight out of Glen Beck's ass. Clearly, you're one of the dumbasses who cause so many of the problems in our country by voting in demagogues instead of people with actual solutions.
Here's a newsflash for you: continuing to try to solve congestion by increasing road capacity doesn't work. All it does is give people an excuse to sprawl even further out into the exurbs, making the problem worse than before. This is not an issue of ideology; it's an issue of economic feasibility. It cannot be done. We can't afford it!
And here's another newsflash: You think people are fighting over energy now? You ain't seen nothin' yet! Just wait another decade or so, when the oil really starts to become scarce. Then the folks who still have reserves will survive, and the folks that squandered it won't. Nobody wants energy to be expensive out of spite or principle or anything ridiculous like that; they just think it's worth a relatively little pain now in order to not be fucked in the long run. You know who is a leader in alternative fuels research? The US Military. You know why? It's not because they're tree-hugging hippies; it's because ending reliance on fossil fuels is an issue of goddamn national security!
Pop Quiz: You're running out of oil. Do you:
This should not be a difficult question!
You may not like it, but I refuse to mortgage my future so that you can drive your 4x4 mommy-mobile 50 miles from bumfuck nowhere to the city and back everyday!
How do you feel about CarMax?
We're not talking about export controls; we're talking about missionaries.
What's wrong with considering another country a "rival?" Like it or not, the world is a competitive environment (even for Communists). Therefore, there are only a few possibilities for the relationship between countries: they can be rivals, teammates, dominating winners or hopeless losers. Given that framework, how would you describe the US's relationship with China?
So, you're going to complain about potholes and you're going to complain about paying your fair share to fix the potholes? Fuck you; you just want a free lunch!
The 50s Cadillac weighed the same, but it paid more than twice as much fuel tax, since it was so much less efficient and fuel is taxed per gallon, not per dollar.
I can assure you that the vast majority of the gas tax does in fact go to building and maintaining roads. The problem is that the gas tax is paid per gallon, not per dollar (so that it doesn't rise with inflation) and hasn't been increased in decades. It varies by jurisdiction, but around here we're spending somewhere around half as much as we did 20 or 30 years ago, adjusted for inflation. The fact that materials and construction costs are increasing at a rate considerably faster than general inflation only exacerbates the problem.
In other words, our roads are resembling post-apocalyptic moonscapes not because we're misappropriating the funds to build transit (Ha! As if the suburban and rural politicians would ever let that fly anyway -- the very thought is absurd!), but rather because we collectively refuse to pay the cost to maintain them in the name of "cheap gas."
If cold mix asphalt is so great, then what's the advantage of hot mix asphalt?
I don't know whether to be pissed off that they're spreading falsehoods across the world, or happy that they're sabotaging a rival country's scientific progress!
Not sure about Discovery networks, but Food/Cooking/HGTV/DIY tend to have full episodes available to stream online these days.
I've got satellite right now too, but I'm hoping to drop it in favor of streaming. I also ran across a device -- I can't remember what it's called right now, but I think it starts with a "C" -- that's supposed to provide an easy-to-use TV interface for all those sorts of things (along with Hulu, Netflix, etc).
I'd probably lean towards turbocharging a 1st-gen Insight, but same difference.
It still doesn't excuse Honda for making the CR-Z so disappointing, though!