From an addiction standpoint, alcohol and weed are way outside the league of meth and heroin. So please don't delude yourself into thinking that if the stuff was cheap and plentiful everything would be ok and there would only be a casual use of it. It won't ever happen. That's because there's nothing casual about using meth or heroin.
Yes, there is a huge difference between addicting and an addition so strong that you will stop at nothing to starve yourself while high 24/7. Now if you want to grant people that level of freedom as a god-given right, I can understand it. But personally, I don't like the idea of being an enabler of such behavior as we watch people destroy their own lives and that of their children through neglect.
So you're okay with the Government telling you what you can and can't put in your body?
You're okay with doors knocked down in the middle of the night while armed bands of government agents pour in? If some innocent person gets killed or it is the wrong house that's okay too, yes?
You're okay government lists of people who buy cold medicine?
You're okay with constant eroding of rights?
You're okay with people getting arrested and charged with a felony for buying cough medicine in one State and going to another State?
I'm willing to say that if it unleashed a flood of crack addicts ending the War on (some) Drugs is damned sure better than all the above and what will continue to come down the pipe. If you're a dittohead then you're professing to be a conservative. Thus, you ought to be in favor of smaller and less intrusive government. You damned sure shouldn't be advocating virtually absolute government control, which is the inevitable end result of the War on (some) Drugs.
Addiction sucks. You know what sucks more? Government run amok and trampling all over the Constitution.
Except i dont know how to do that already. What i do "know" is that somewhere in Word you can change cases. . . and sure enough, it took me 10 seconds to find, or about the same amount of time that it took you to type that -buggy- code.
Yes, yours does all files in a directory. Whats the real world use case on that? Try instead mine where i can easily select text in a file to do it on. Real world applicability for wanting a paragraph, not a whole document or directory lower case? A LOT more. It also includes things like sentence case and all caps. Whats your code for that?
Look, I get that programming is powerful, but its not always better or faster. For "power users" what is faster, a few clicks to their file then clicking the icon that looks like it changes cases (Aa) or banging out your limited code, including typing file paths?
The real world use case on changing a large number of files name? Happens frequently. It isn't always name case. Sometimes it is switching underscores for spaces and the like. A similar version of the same code does that just as well.
The example given wasn't text manipulation but file name manipulation. These would be two very different things. Are you going to use Word to perform a mass rename?
And no, you don't have to type out any file paths. What gave you that idea? It seems you have no idea what I'm talking about and I'm afraid I can't help that.
Well... since you didn't bother to limit it to only "simple user tasks".....
for i in * do mv $i `echo $i | tr [:upper:] [:lower:]` done
Done, all the files in that directory are now lower case.
Except:
it fails with file names with spaces in them (which shouldn't be anything out of the blue)
it fails with file names beginning with "-"
it might overwrite in an unwanted way if two files exist with the same name but different case
it warns when file is already lowercase
And that's just it. It's another case of "See how easy that was? Oh, we just need to add some quotes. Oh, and -- as an argument for mv. Oh, and -i as an argument for mv. But remember to put -i before --. Everybody knows that." - and yet you created a script that is a text book example of creating a fragile script.
Great default settings are of utter importance and the whole list of the default tools is much influenced by historic (and backwards compatible) reasons. It still leads to different interesting design cases:
head and tail are extremely similar but have two different commands. GNU head can't even behave as tail with command switches.
most people would want to create soft links (as opposed to hard links) in their daily routine but still have to go through ln -s instead of a command just for soft links. That is not unlike the -o loop example in GP, as a case of "yeah, you should obviously know that".
Allow me to retort:)
Obviously if spaces were known to be present, something one would surely check for, you'd quote the variables. Some people quote them by default and I knew that 'problem' existed with my example. However, I drew this from something I really did a couple of weeks ago and the problem didn't exist there.
Only morons name files with leading '-'. Yes, I know people sometimes download files with them named like that but it is still a bloody stupid thing to do. That said, you're right. It would fail with such a relatively unusual corner case
Yes, it might. That however is also a corner case and if it were a concern this probably wouldn't be the best approach.
I hardly think extra output is a serious concern.
The point to this example was not to give a tutorial on bash scripting or to cover every possible corner case. It was obviously to point out a not uncommon situation where a GUI only person would have to hunt down a program to perform what is in reality a very simple and quick task on the CLI.
As to the rest....
Head and Tail are only similar in that they both output text. I would think they're name would both indicate that they aren't exactly the same and probably perform different, albeit similar, functions. That said, why would you expect 'head' to have an option to behave like 'tail'?
Fair enough on the -s... that said, I'm pretty sure that anyone who knows enough to be creating symlinks in the first place already knows the -s thing.
I once wore my Macbook Air into a store...oh wait, I guess your definition of fashion is different than mine, because I couldn't find any clothes in the Apple store last time.
I had presumed, apparently erroneously, that I didn't have to explain the definition of the word fashion and the usage in context. Fashion isn't only clothes and referring to a store as fashionable or more about fashion than something else doesn't mean it sells clothes. It means it is a store devoted to a particular image or style.
Well... since you didn't bother to limit it to only "simple user tasks".....
for i in * do mv $i `echo $i | tr [:upper:] [:lower:]` done
Done, all the files in that directory are now lower case. Can you do that with some GUI tool pulled off ZDNet or some other random place? Yes. Would it take you longer to find it, download it, virus scan it and figure out how to use it? Absolutely.
The parent specifically said "if you want to be proficient" then you should learn the CLI. This is true.
The parent also specifically said you shouldn't have to drop to a CLI for basic day to day activities. Did you even read the post you were replying to?
Another example? Oh, okay.
for i in `cat listofservers` do rdesktop (bunchofoptions) $i & done
30 RDP sessions open and ready. It would work equally well with an actual list of servers instead of a handy text file laying about. A Linux/KDE specific example has all those 30 sessions grouped into tabbed windows of 5 each, windowshaded and placed where I want them on the desktop for rapid access.
The Apple Store should disprove this, though: At $4,032 per square foot per year, the NYC Apple Store is the most profitable retail store per square foot in the world, period.
As I said earlier... Apple Stores are not technology stores. They are fashion stores. Period.
Here's the thing.. you read the description.. look at the video.. and it screams "This is an ad that is trying vainly to look like an article". If you read it somewhere else, what would you think?
The Galaxy Nexus will continue to work just fine on CDMA. For future models, well, that's another story...
Google forces the industry to either open up their firmware or move on to GSM. Good thing, IMO.
It's a good thing.... unless you bought a Galaxy Nexus in the US, and didn't pay a fortune to import a GSM (and slower) version... in which case Google just tossed us out in the cold stripping practically the entire reason for buying a GNEX away.
FDR did not pack the court with statists. In fact, the proposal he had advanced (of adding more justices to the supreme court), never went through. Instead, one justice on the court changed his mind about how to approach these matters and turned what had once been a 4-5 court into a 5-4 court. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_switch_in_time_that_saved_nine
But go ahead and blame FDR, that's easier than learning about history.
--AC
That is the only reason he didn't pack the court. The previous post is still correct, you just explained the precise method and did point out the error that FDR didn't have to pack the court to get his way. Either way, it's still the New Deal and FDR's fault. Greatest President my ass.
Can anyone comment on why the Supreme Court has historically allowed the Commerce clause to apply to absolutely anything that could be remotely, however ridiculously, be considered related to interstate commerce, and thus trample states' rights?
Is this simply a perennial sin of the Court, or is there a sound Constitutional basis for it?
I certainly cannot, since the states rights are enshrined in the 14th amendment and the commerce clause is in the original constitution, it has never made sense to me. The amendments are supposed to supercede the consititution. That's the whole point of having them.
Point of order... States do not have Rights. States have Powers, People have Rights.:)
I would also note that the interstate commerce clause is used as justification for the Obamacare individual mandate.
Everything that isn't explicitly authorized by the Constitution is claimed to be found in the virtually infinite ICC or GW clause.
EPA, War on (some) Drugs, FTC and probably a dozen more federal agencies. Whether a person likes them all or not, they're all tied directly to the infinite power interpretation of the ICC (or GW).
You seem to be arguing that the government's powers are in fact basically unlimited on the grounds that anything and everything could be linked somehow to Commerce or General Welfare. Is that the case?
So much for a government of limited and defined powers...
Your time has already been taken away from you by forcing you to commute by placing all the businesses together solely for tax reasons (enabled by corrupt politicians who gave them breaks so that they wouldn't have to pay their fair share) which leads to you not being able to live near work. Baa louder.
What? I decided to live out away from the city because it is quieter and nicer out here. What does that have to do with centralization of businesses?
That's the way it's supposed to work. Right now the people in the flyover states are forcing the rest of us to live the way they want us to live, even though there's a lot more of us than there are of them. And the red states are the ones helping to pass the laws which remove our freedoms, and they're the ones with the least people, while the states with the most people are trying to remove laws, or pass laws that grant freedom, and which don't force the people in the flyover states to do anything in particular except perhaps pollute less which is good for everyone on the planet.
Awesome. First you're advocating for a tyranny of the majority, screw the way anyone else wants to live.. there's more of us! Second, you try to claim an enlightened status by saying that it is those evil knuckle dragging red staters that are rolling back freedom. If only they would get out of the way and let your enlightenment spread.
No impact on them, huh? How about general over regulation and generally forcing them to live the way you want them to live? How about you go down to south Illinois and ask them how they feel about the policies forced on them by Chicago. Ask them if they want concealed carry laws and then explain to them why you up in Chicago get to tell them no they can't.
Have you ever considered the fact that there are no real blue states, only blue cities within states nearly entirely blue? Have you ever considered what those islands of enlightenment would do without the support of those red areas out in 'flyover country'? But meh to them... bunch of unenlightened cretins who should just know their place, yeah?
It's only presumed in your mind because you haven't gone to look. There's a ton of very telling economic research on the costs of smoking to society and it doesn't take a degree in rocket science or even economics to understand why. End of life care is expensive and end of life care for smokers is often even more expensive.
Also are you asserting the federal and state govts lack the power to levy an excise tax for whatever purposes congress and the legislature deem fit? You can say that but just saying doesn't make it so. There is a *very* long history of those kind of taxes and plenty of jurisprudence on the subject.
Are you saying that Congress and the various States have absolutely unlimited power? Because if you're saying that they have the power to levy any tax for any reason that's exactly what you're saying, no?
Why is it wrong when a behavior increases an individual's societal burden?
First, the increase in societal burden in a way that government is the proper redress is presumed and not proven. Second, at least in the US the fed.gov lacks that power. The fact that the courts and the people have thus far let them get away with it does not actually change that fact.
The purpose of taxes are to pay for the government.
As long as we have any publicly funded health care, then government is paying for the health consequences of smoking. With that in mind, why is it wrong to tax a behavior that increases an individual's societal burden?
That is one of the problems with government funded health care. Because as far as that goes, your logic is correct and I'm sure we'll be seeing more of that kind of thing in the future. Though, perhaps we ought to kick government out of health care before it is too late.
It is also almost always written by someone who never or rarely ever steps foot outside the sphere of influence of either LA or NYC or comparable places. Just like the commenter above who advocated raising fuel taxes super high and using that money to pay for mass transit. If your world view is centered on NYC/Chicago/LA and similar places that makes sense. If your world is not those places, then it doesn't make a damned bit of sense.
So, only raise the gas tax for passenger vehicles. It's not that hard. You can rebate gas taxes for truckers, you can have truckers show a commercial license and have the tax waived. It could be done with a keychain fob the same way you get a discount at the grocery chain with your little card with the bar code.
Yeah, screw the poor who will end up paying those taxes. It's not like they might need their car to get to work or go to the store or anything.
Here in Chicago, the streets are clogged with people driving alone in SUVs the size of locomotives. All day long, you can drive up and down Ashland Ave and there will be one Suburban or Nissan Armada or Navigator or some other ridiculously huge vehice with a single person driving all by herself. Those drivers need to pay a higher gas tax to cover the externalities they are forcing the rest of us to pay.
First, who are you to say they shouldn't have those cars? I personally think they're silly for most people but that's my choice as much as to drive the things are their choices. Would you care to define these so-called 'externalities' they're forcing you to pay?
Better yet, maybe it would be a good thing when people start realizing there is a great benefit to living closer to where you work. How much of societies productivity and time and expense is thrown down the drain in daily 2-hour commutes?
Who cares how much time is 'thrown down the drain'? Is it not my time to waste or would you advocate taking it away from me? It would be nice to live close to work and be there quickly. You know what else is also nice? Not living in the crime infested crap hole that is Chicago. I know for damned sure if my choices were living inside Chicago or outside it the long drive would absolutely be worth it to me. Of course, I wouldn't live in Illinois at all, so there is that.:)
I think people may already be starting to learn a little bit. You want to go to the exurbs of any major metropolis, you'll find that housing prices have dropped a lot faster out there than they have closer in to the city. And let's be clear: most of us live in cities. The term "flyover country" is actually pretty accurate.
Condescending much? Do you also look down on all those hicks living in the central parts of the State? When Chicago votes one way and the rest of the entire state votes another, do you rub your hands with glee that they are forced to live the way you want or move out of the state?
Ok. But should taxes be used to capture the costs of externalities not accounted for otherwise?
For instance, the increase in the cost of healthcare caused by polution isn't reflected in the price of gas at the pump. That cost is passed along to society at large. Do you think it's appropriate for that cost to be captured by a tax?
No. For two reasons. The first being that once you allow government to start collecting taxes for "externalities" then you've given them practically a blank check for whatever new taxes they want to levy, as long as it is to "capture the cost of an externalty." Second, It ought not be the role of government to be deciding such things. What's more, who is to say what the increase in cost of health care is or even if it can be tied to car pollution or any other sort.
Whatever you think..taxes should not be used for behavioral manipulations.
Taxes are for funding the govt services we all need...that should be it...period.
People should be free to choose to drive and spend in the fashion they wish.
Taxes weren't passed to allow a 'chosen' few to dictate citizen behavior....
So you advocate rolling back tobacco taxes?
Speaking for myself, absolutely. Taxes used for social engineering are wrong. Period.
The purpose of taxes are to pay for the government. If the specific role of fuel taxes are to pay for the roads, then raising them with the idea of forcing 'economy' is wrong.
It is also amazing to me that some of the same people who will practically demand such taxes in the name of the environment will turn right around and argue that a flat tax is wrong because it hurts the poor. As if the higher fuel tax doesn't?
But that's not all Apple keeps off, and they don't always keep it clean anyway.
Hence my use of the phrase "...tries to walk the thin line...".
Your message suggests imperfections may exist in a human-devised system for dealing with human-caused problems.
Or they are alluding to the fact that Apple also keeps any apps that may compete with any of their own ones off. Or ones that might be 'offensive'.
In short, Apple doesn't come anywhere close to merely keeping off phishing apps, viruses and the like. They keep off anything they feel you shouldn't have regardless of whether or not it is 'safe' or not. It might be easier to defend the walled garden approach if it didn't lead to such actions as surely as the Sun will rise tomorrow.
XBox made up 57% of the sales, 29% for PS3 and PC only 14%. Probably in part to the 3 million downloads of the game via torrents.
Perhaps their crappy sales numbers are in some large part due to what the parent said. The vast majority of "PC" games these days are just crappy console ports. It's hard to get too excited about dropping 60 bucks on a game that you'll likely play once and then only rarely, if ever, again. I'm sure the counter argument to this is that no one buys Crysis/MW/WhateverFPSIsHot for the single player campaign. Maybe that is true. Personally, bad single player == no deal.
Slashdot Mirror
From an addiction standpoint, alcohol and weed are way outside the league of meth and heroin. So please don't delude yourself into thinking that if the stuff was cheap and plentiful everything would be ok and there would only be a casual use of it. It won't ever happen. That's because there's nothing casual about using meth or heroin.
Yes, there is a huge difference between addicting and an addition so strong that you will stop at nothing to starve yourself while high 24/7. Now if you want to grant people that level of freedom as a god-given right, I can understand it. But personally, I don't like the idea of being an enabler of such behavior as we watch people destroy their own lives and that of their children through neglect.
So you're okay with the Government telling you what you can and can't put in your body?
You're okay with doors knocked down in the middle of the night while armed bands of government agents pour in? If some innocent person gets killed or it is the wrong house that's okay too, yes?
You're okay government lists of people who buy cold medicine?
You're okay with constant eroding of rights?
You're okay with people getting arrested and charged with a felony for buying cough medicine in one State and going to another State?
I'm willing to say that if it unleashed a flood of crack addicts ending the War on (some) Drugs is damned sure better than all the above and what will continue to come down the pipe. If you're a dittohead then you're professing to be a conservative. Thus, you ought to be in favor of smaller and less intrusive government. You damned sure shouldn't be advocating virtually absolute government control, which is the inevitable end result of the War on (some) Drugs.
Addiction sucks. You know what sucks more? Government run amok and trampling all over the Constitution.
Except i dont know how to do that already. What i do "know" is that somewhere in Word you can change cases. . . and sure enough, it took me 10 seconds to find, or about the same amount of time that it took you to type that -buggy- code.
Yes, yours does all files in a directory. Whats the real world use case on that? Try instead mine where i can easily select text in a file to do it on. Real world applicability for wanting a paragraph, not a whole document or directory lower case? A LOT more. It also includes things like sentence case and all caps. Whats your code for that?
Look, I get that programming is powerful, but its not always better or faster. For "power users" what is faster, a few clicks to their file then clicking the icon that looks like it changes cases (Aa) or banging out your limited code, including typing file paths?
The real world use case on changing a large number of files name? Happens frequently. It isn't always name case. Sometimes it is switching underscores for spaces and the like. A similar version of the same code does that just as well.
The example given wasn't text manipulation but file name manipulation. These would be two very different things. Are you going to use Word to perform a mass rename?
And no, you don't have to type out any file paths. What gave you that idea? It seems you have no idea what I'm talking about and I'm afraid I can't help that.
Well... since you didn't bother to limit it to only "simple user tasks".....
for i in *
do
mv $i `echo $i | tr [:upper:] [:lower:]`
done
Done, all the files in that directory are now lower case.
Except:
And that's just it. It's another case of "See how easy that was? Oh, we just need to add some quotes. Oh, and -- as an argument for mv. Oh, and -i as an argument for mv. But remember to put -i before --. Everybody knows that." - and yet you created a script that is a text book example of creating a fragile script.
Great default settings are of utter importance and the whole list of the default tools is much influenced by historic (and backwards compatible) reasons. It still leads to different interesting design cases:
Allow me to retort :)
The point to this example was not to give a tutorial on bash scripting or to cover every possible corner case. It was obviously to point out a not uncommon situation where a GUI only person would have to hunt down a program to perform what is in reality a very simple and quick task on the CLI.
As to the rest....
I once wore my Macbook Air into a store...oh wait, I guess your definition of fashion is different than mine, because I couldn't find any clothes in the Apple store last time.
I had presumed, apparently erroneously, that I didn't have to explain the definition of the word fashion and the usage in context. Fashion isn't only clothes and referring to a store as fashionable or more about fashion than something else doesn't mean it sells clothes. It means it is a store devoted to a particular image or style.
Well... since you didn't bother to limit it to only "simple user tasks".....
for i in *
do
mv $i `echo $i | tr [:upper:] [:lower:]`
done
Done, all the files in that directory are now lower case. Can you do that with some GUI tool pulled off ZDNet or some other random place? Yes. Would it take you longer to find it, download it, virus scan it and figure out how to use it? Absolutely.
The parent specifically said "if you want to be proficient" then you should learn the CLI. This is true.
The parent also specifically said you shouldn't have to drop to a CLI for basic day to day activities. Did you even read the post you were replying to?
Another example? Oh, okay.
for i in `cat listofservers`
do
rdesktop (bunchofoptions) $i &
done
30 RDP sessions open and ready. It would work equally well with an actual list of servers instead of a handy text file laying about. A Linux/KDE specific example has all those 30 sessions grouped into tabbed windows of 5 each, windowshaded and placed where I want them on the desktop for rapid access.
More?
Repeating some silly assertion doesn't make it true. Neither does putting "Period." after it.
You can call it silly if you wish. It changes nothing. Apple stores are more about image and fashion than electronics.
The Apple Store should disprove this, though: At $4,032 per square foot per year, the NYC Apple Store is the most profitable retail store per square foot in the world, period.
As I said earlier... Apple Stores are not technology stores. They are fashion stores. Period.
Yet Apple can't seem to open stores up fast enough. Go figure.
That's because Apple stores are not electronics stores. They're fashion stores that happen to sell electronics.
Here's the thing.. you read the description.. look at the video.. and it screams "This is an ad that is trying vainly to look like an article". If you read it somewhere else, what would you think?
The Galaxy Nexus will continue to work just fine on CDMA. For future models, well, that's another story...
Google forces the industry to either open up their firmware or move on to GSM. Good thing, IMO.
It's a good thing.... unless you bought a Galaxy Nexus in the US, and didn't pay a fortune to import a GSM (and slower) version... in which case Google just tossed us out in the cold stripping practically the entire reason for buying a GNEX away.
But otherwise, it's awesome.. or something....
Please, please, please. Learn your history.
FDR did not pack the court with statists. In fact, the proposal he had advanced (of adding more justices to the supreme court), never went through. Instead, one justice on the court changed his mind about how to approach these matters and turned what had once been a 4-5 court into a 5-4 court. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_switch_in_time_that_saved_nine
But go ahead and blame FDR, that's easier than learning about history.
--AC
That is the only reason he didn't pack the court. The previous post is still correct, you just explained the precise method and did point out the error that FDR didn't have to pack the court to get his way. Either way, it's still the New Deal and FDR's fault. Greatest President my ass.
Can anyone comment on why the Supreme Court has historically allowed the Commerce clause to apply to absolutely anything that could be remotely, however ridiculously, be considered related to interstate commerce, and thus trample states' rights?
Is this simply a perennial sin of the Court, or is there a sound Constitutional basis for it?
I certainly cannot, since the states rights are enshrined in the 14th amendment and the commerce clause is in the original constitution, it has never made sense to me. The amendments are supposed to supercede the consititution. That's the whole point of having them.
Point of order... States do not have Rights. States have Powers, People have Rights. :)
I would also note that the interstate commerce clause is used as justification for the Obamacare individual mandate.
Everything that isn't explicitly authorized by the Constitution is claimed to be found in the virtually infinite ICC or GW clause.
EPA, War on (some) Drugs, FTC and probably a dozen more federal agencies. Whether a person likes them all or not, they're all tied directly to the infinite power interpretation of the ICC (or GW).
Yes they could. Except in as much as the 1st and 9th amendments stand in opposition to doing that.
And that's stopped them exactly when?
When was the last time the SCOTUS paid the least attention to the 9th or 10th Amendments?
Unfortunately, we all got screwed starting at least back with FDR and getting ever worse since.
You seem to be arguing that the government's powers are in fact basically unlimited on the grounds that anything and everything could be linked somehow to Commerce or General Welfare. Is that the case?
So much for a government of limited and defined powers...
Your time has already been taken away from you by forcing you to commute by placing all the businesses together solely for tax reasons (enabled by corrupt politicians who gave them breaks so that they wouldn't have to pay their fair share) which leads to you not being able to live near work. Baa louder.
What? I decided to live out away from the city because it is quieter and nicer out here. What does that have to do with centralization of businesses?
That's the way it's supposed to work. Right now the people in the flyover states are forcing the rest of us to live the way they want us to live, even though there's a lot more of us than there are of them. And the red states are the ones helping to pass the laws which remove our freedoms, and they're the ones with the least people, while the states with the most people are trying to remove laws, or pass laws that grant freedom, and which don't force the people in the flyover states to do anything in particular except perhaps pollute less which is good for everyone on the planet.
Awesome. First you're advocating for a tyranny of the majority, screw the way anyone else wants to live.. there's more of us! Second, you try to claim an enlightened status by saying that it is those evil knuckle dragging red staters that are rolling back freedom. If only they would get out of the way and let your enlightenment spread.
No impact on them, huh? How about general over regulation and generally forcing them to live the way you want them to live? How about you go down to south Illinois and ask them how they feel about the policies forced on them by Chicago. Ask them if they want concealed carry laws and then explain to them why you up in Chicago get to tell them no they can't.
Have you ever considered the fact that there are no real blue states, only blue cities within states nearly entirely blue? Have you ever considered what those islands of enlightenment would do without the support of those red areas out in 'flyover country'? But meh to them... bunch of unenlightened cretins who should just know their place, yeah?
It's only presumed in your mind because you haven't gone to look. There's a ton of very telling economic research on the costs of smoking to society and it doesn't take a degree in rocket science or even economics to understand why. End of life care is expensive and end of life care for smokers is often even more expensive.
Also are you asserting the federal and state govts lack the power to levy an excise tax for whatever purposes congress and the legislature deem fit? You can say that but just saying doesn't make it so. There is a *very* long history of those kind of taxes and plenty of jurisprudence on the subject.
Are you saying that Congress and the various States have absolutely unlimited power? Because if you're saying that they have the power to levy any tax for any reason that's exactly what you're saying, no?
Why is it wrong when a behavior increases an individual's societal burden?
First, the increase in societal burden in a way that government is the proper redress is presumed and not proven. Second, at least in the US the fed.gov lacks that power. The fact that the courts and the people have thus far let them get away with it does not actually change that fact.
The purpose of taxes are to pay for the government.
As long as we have any publicly funded health care, then government is paying for the health consequences of smoking. With that in mind, why is it wrong to tax a behavior that increases an individual's societal burden?
That is one of the problems with government funded health care. Because as far as that goes, your logic is correct and I'm sure we'll be seeing more of that kind of thing in the future. Though, perhaps we ought to kick government out of health care before it is too late.
It is also almost always written by someone who never or rarely ever steps foot outside the sphere of influence of either LA or NYC or comparable places. Just like the commenter above who advocated raising fuel taxes super high and using that money to pay for mass transit. If your world view is centered on NYC/Chicago/LA and similar places that makes sense. If your world is not those places, then it doesn't make a damned bit of sense.
So, only raise the gas tax for passenger vehicles. It's not that hard. You can rebate gas taxes for truckers, you can have truckers show a commercial license and have the tax waived. It could be done with a keychain fob the same way you get a discount at the grocery chain with your little card with the bar code.
Yeah, screw the poor who will end up paying those taxes. It's not like they might need their car to get to work or go to the store or anything.
Here in Chicago, the streets are clogged with people driving alone in SUVs the size of locomotives. All day long, you can drive up and down Ashland Ave and there will be one Suburban or Nissan Armada or Navigator or some other ridiculously huge vehice with a single person driving all by herself. Those drivers need to pay a higher gas tax to cover the externalities they are forcing the rest of us to pay.
First, who are you to say they shouldn't have those cars? I personally think they're silly for most people but that's my choice as much as to drive the things are their choices. Would you care to define these so-called 'externalities' they're forcing you to pay?
Better yet, maybe it would be a good thing when people start realizing there is a great benefit to living closer to where you work. How much of societies productivity and time and expense is thrown down the drain in daily 2-hour commutes?
Who cares how much time is 'thrown down the drain'? Is it not my time to waste or would you advocate taking it away from me? It would be nice to live close to work and be there quickly. You know what else is also nice? Not living in the crime infested crap hole that is Chicago. I know for damned sure if my choices were living inside Chicago or outside it the long drive would absolutely be worth it to me. Of course, I wouldn't live in Illinois at all, so there is that. :)
I think people may already be starting to learn a little bit. You want to go to the exurbs of any major metropolis, you'll find that housing prices have dropped a lot faster out there than they have closer in to the city. And let's be clear: most of us live in cities. The term "flyover country" is actually pretty accurate.
Condescending much? Do you also look down on all those hicks living in the central parts of the State? When Chicago votes one way and the rest of the entire state votes another, do you rub your hands with glee that they are forced to live the way you want or move out of the state?
Ok. But should taxes be used to capture the costs of externalities not accounted for otherwise?
For instance, the increase in the cost of healthcare caused by polution isn't reflected in the price of gas at the pump. That cost is passed along to society at large. Do you think it's appropriate for that cost to be captured by a tax?
No. For two reasons. The first being that once you allow government to start collecting taxes for "externalities" then you've given them practically a blank check for whatever new taxes they want to levy, as long as it is to "capture the cost of an externalty." Second, It ought not be the role of government to be deciding such things. What's more, who is to say what the increase in cost of health care is or even if it can be tied to car pollution or any other sort.
Whatever you think..taxes should not be used for behavioral manipulations.
Taxes are for funding the govt services we all need...that should be it...period.
People should be free to choose to drive and spend in the fashion they wish.
Taxes weren't passed to allow a 'chosen' few to dictate citizen behavior....
So you advocate rolling back tobacco taxes?
Speaking for myself, absolutely. Taxes used for social engineering are wrong. Period.
The purpose of taxes are to pay for the government. If the specific role of fuel taxes are to pay for the roads, then raising them with the idea of forcing 'economy' is wrong.
It is also amazing to me that some of the same people who will practically demand such taxes in the name of the environment will turn right around and argue that a flat tax is wrong because it hurts the poor. As if the higher fuel tax doesn't?
But that's not all Apple keeps off, and they don't always keep it clean anyway.
Hence my use of the phrase "...tries to walk the thin line...".
Your message suggests imperfections may exist in a human-devised system for dealing with human-caused problems.
Or they are alluding to the fact that Apple also keeps any apps that may compete with any of their own ones off. Or ones that might be 'offensive'.
In short, Apple doesn't come anywhere close to merely keeping off phishing apps, viruses and the like. They keep off anything they feel you shouldn't have regardless of whether or not it is 'safe' or not. It might be easier to defend the walled garden approach if it didn't lead to such actions as surely as the Sun will rise tomorrow.
As shown on http://www.destructoid.com/crysis-2-huge-success-xbox-360-dominates-sales-197396.phtml
XBox made up 57% of the sales, 29% for PS3 and PC only 14%. Probably in part to the 3 million downloads of the game via torrents.
Perhaps their crappy sales numbers are in some large part due to what the parent said. The vast majority of "PC" games these days are just crappy console ports. It's hard to get too excited about dropping 60 bucks on a game that you'll likely play once and then only rarely, if ever, again. I'm sure the counter argument to this is that no one buys Crysis/MW/WhateverFPSIsHot for the single player campaign. Maybe that is true. Personally, bad single player == no deal.