No, it's a user fee. If congestion tolls on government highways are taxes, then what about entrance fees to government national parks or campgrounds, passport fees, bridge tolls (to pay for a recently constructed bridge), ordinary road tolls, and so forth? Are you going to decry the non-egalitarian fact that poor folks pay just as much for a passport as rich folks?
We have this bizarre guy, Rick Perry, who refuses to have the government pay for the most legitimate thing government can pay for! Roads!
Aside from the fact that Texas has (some) toll roads and they seem to work well, you honestly think that roads are more "legitimate" government expenses than police and courts? How silly: you'd prefer free 5-lane highways for everyone but no law enforcement?
Technology is ALL about bringing us closer. Most no one's invented or created anything that brings us further away from each other.
Fences, walls, soundproofing, clothing, automobiles, freeways, books, iPods, and firearms all serve to isolate people from each other by some means or another.
In my state, Catholic pharmacists cannot legally practice their religion - they are forced to dispense birth control, even abortifacients, or face legal penalties.
Maybe Catholics just shouldn't practice pharmacy, if doing so in an acceptably complete and non-discriminatory way is against their religion. Just like Christians used to refrain from practicing banking (as collecting interest used to be considered a sin).
(Fortunately?) I have not had any Java assignments, nor have I had any assignments in Java. However, I have also never had an assignment in C or C++ that required a specific platform. If I did (i.e. if I was learning something that required system calls and attention to endianness), I doubt Java would be in any way useful. But your assignments in data structures, algorithms, sorts, etc. can all be written in the same C or C++ that will compile on any system compliant to the standard.
I also don't believe that others should be forced to pay for the consequences of one's self-harming behavior--as you point out, forcing others to do so diminishes their freedom as well as the freedom of the seatbeltless motorist.
The original intent behind public schools, at least in the United States, was to educate the populace as a whole, thus allowing the democratic system to work properly. It was not meant to "benefit society" so much as it was deemed a necessary part of the political system. Whatever the benefits of socialized medicine, it does little to make democracy work any better.
One's a matter of public safety, one isn't. (You could argue infectious disease, but vaccination laws, quarantining, and so forth are separate from general health care. Plus, most places in the US have a city hospital.) The real question is why you folks in Europe have socialized medicine, but you don't have socialized farming. (I often argue that, just as we have food stamps and public assistance in the US instead of socialized farming, so should we have free emergency care and routine care vouchers instead of socialized medicine, along with a means test so funds are restricted to those who truly cannot pay their own way.)
Take Mac Mini's. There is nothing headless that sits between the most expensive Mac Mini (£499) and the cheapest Mac Pro (£1,429). I have a perfectly good monitor and I don't want to have to be forced to buy a new one every time I upgrade my PC - so I'd like to avoid the iMac.
The iMac actually has video out, so you could get it and have two displays.
For example, the new software for the iPod touch is a $20 download. This is the same software that's a free update for the iPhone. Even the new software for the Apple TV is a free upgrade. If I were an iPod touch owner, I'd be pretty offended that I have to pay $20 (well, disregarding free jailbreaking options and whatnot) for an update that iPhone users get for free.
Actually, iPhone users have to pay AT&T a monthly service fee, part of which goes back to Apple in exchange for software upgrades.
You wanted to know what evidence we had of the past being representative of the future (universe tomorrow being the same as today). This is a common question to anyone who has studied machine learning, followed statisticians' debates or even done some casual reading on the matter. I answered by giving you the basic idea of evidence we had, from the definition of what evidence means. I also pointed out how we have used that evidence to build a tangibly successful model of the universe.
I agree with you that it is pragmatic to assume the principle of uniformity of nature, but you have still not given me any argument that it is true! Those are two radically different criteria unless you are William James. Even if you are Quine things are a little more complicated than that.
If you can give an example of just one "irrational" or baseless assumption an established scientific theory has made, you are en route to a Nobel Prize.
There are "baseless" assumptions behind not just any given scientific theory, but behind the scientific method itself. These assumptions are necessary and state things that no one seriously disagrees with, but they remain baseless and unproven. Any first year philosophy student knows that.
Are you ready for the real kicker? Here it comes--the conclusions of science aren't proven to be true either. They are held to be predictive of observations, and we behave as they will remain so (assuming such things as the principle of uniformity of nature), but science, due to the same types of concerns I am raising here and now along with many others, is no longer concerned with truth qua truth. A more honest and useful policy if you ask me.
I'm all for environmental protection. I'm not for things like seatbelt and helmet laws or restrictions on what kind of drugs I can get, because if I want to harm myself that's my own fucking business. Do you not see the difference? People should be stopped from harming others (and that includes harming others indirectly via harming the environment), but people should be allowed to harm themselves.
I'm also all for selfishness, given the above provisos. I'm not insecure enough to want to justify it to anyone else.
This is just speculation, but back in the day when maintaining empires was still profitable, I bet the French still had some of those things. England used to support itself entirely on its empire--Englishmen had the right to not pay taxes in those days, since the Crown made smashing amounts of profit by chartering companies to voyage abroad and collecting the profits from their colonial ventures. When they ran into financial problems in the mid 18th century and started taxing Englishmen living in America, they got upset and decided to start a new independent country.
Kaczynski was actually still a very articulate writer even after his reign of terror began--Industrial Society and its Future is very well-written and worthy of a respectful response, although the bombs he sent out were only worthy of the response they ultimately got.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a master's in Kelsey Grammer Studies, you insensitive clod!
No, it's a user fee. If congestion tolls on government highways are taxes, then what about entrance fees to government national parks or campgrounds, passport fees, bridge tolls (to pay for a recently constructed bridge), ordinary road tolls, and so forth? Are you going to decry the non-egalitarian fact that poor folks pay just as much for a passport as rich folks?
Aside from the fact that Texas has (some) toll roads and they seem to work well, you honestly think that roads are more "legitimate" government expenses than police and courts? How silly: you'd prefer free 5-lane highways for everyone but no law enforcement?
Fences, walls, soundproofing, clothing, automobiles, freeways, books, iPods, and firearms all serve to isolate people from each other by some means or another.
Maybe Catholics just shouldn't practice pharmacy, if doing so in an acceptably complete and non-discriminatory way is against their religion. Just like Christians used to refrain from practicing banking (as collecting interest used to be considered a sin).
(Fortunately?) I have not had any Java assignments, nor have I had any assignments in Java. However, I have also never had an assignment in C or C++ that required a specific platform. If I did (i.e. if I was learning something that required system calls and attention to endianness), I doubt Java would be in any way useful. But your assignments in data structures, algorithms, sorts, etc. can all be written in the same C or C++ that will compile on any system compliant to the standard.
By that standard you can remove "finger", "make clean", and half the other commands too.
I can't think of a single first-year computer science assignment that should require any platform-specific code when written in C or C++.
In many of my social circles, the word "cyber" is instantly associated with "I put on my robe and wizard hat."
A butt plug that syncs to iTunes?
Or donate them as a tax writeoff?
I also don't believe that others should be forced to pay for the consequences of one's self-harming behavior--as you point out, forcing others to do so diminishes their freedom as well as the freedom of the seatbeltless motorist.
The original intent behind public schools, at least in the United States, was to educate the populace as a whole, thus allowing the democratic system to work properly. It was not meant to "benefit society" so much as it was deemed a necessary part of the political system. Whatever the benefits of socialized medicine, it does little to make democracy work any better.
Hey! You! The 18th-century mercantilist over there! The past 200 years of economics have something to say to you!
Is it true that in Canada there are no space bars on the keyboards?
Try not paying your taxes and see what happens.
One's a matter of public safety, one isn't. (You could argue infectious disease, but vaccination laws, quarantining, and so forth are separate from general health care. Plus, most places in the US have a city hospital.) The real question is why you folks in Europe have socialized medicine, but you don't have socialized farming. (I often argue that, just as we have food stamps and public assistance in the US instead of socialized farming, so should we have free emergency care and routine care vouchers instead of socialized medicine, along with a means test so funds are restricted to those who truly cannot pay their own way.)
My point is that despite the existence of these mine-clearing vehicles, laying mines still holds an advantage for the defender.
The iMac actually has video out, so you could get it and have two displays.
Actually, iPhone users have to pay AT&T a monthly service fee, part of which goes back to Apple in exchange for software upgrades.
I agree with you that it is pragmatic to assume the principle of uniformity of nature, but you have still not given me any argument that it is true! Those are two radically different criteria unless you are William James. Even if you are Quine things are a little more complicated than that.
If you can give an example of just one "irrational" or baseless assumption an established scientific theory has made, you are en route to a Nobel Prize.There are "baseless" assumptions behind not just any given scientific theory, but behind the scientific method itself. These assumptions are necessary and state things that no one seriously disagrees with, but they remain baseless and unproven. Any first year philosophy student knows that.
Are you ready for the real kicker? Here it comes--the conclusions of science aren't proven to be true either. They are held to be predictive of observations, and we behave as they will remain so (assuming such things as the principle of uniformity of nature), but science, due to the same types of concerns I am raising here and now along with many others, is no longer concerned with truth qua truth. A more honest and useful policy if you ask me.
I'm all for environmental protection. I'm not for things like seatbelt and helmet laws or restrictions on what kind of drugs I can get, because if I want to harm myself that's my own fucking business. Do you not see the difference? People should be stopped from harming others (and that includes harming others indirectly via harming the environment), but people should be allowed to harm themselves.
I'm also all for selfishness, given the above provisos. I'm not insecure enough to want to justify it to anyone else.
Like KFC, the SAT, and BP, the initials don't stand for anything anymore and neither do they!
This is just speculation, but back in the day when maintaining empires was still profitable, I bet the French still had some of those things. England used to support itself entirely on its empire--Englishmen had the right to not pay taxes in those days, since the Crown made smashing amounts of profit by chartering companies to voyage abroad and collecting the profits from their colonial ventures. When they ran into financial problems in the mid 18th century and started taxing Englishmen living in America, they got upset and decided to start a new independent country.
Kaczynski was actually still a very articulate writer even after his reign of terror began--Industrial Society and its Future is very well-written and worthy of a respectful response, although the bombs he sent out were only worthy of the response they ultimately got.