It is an nvidia board, but the firewall component isn't on ; I have a router running OpenWRT for that.
I have it from people inside MS (via a friend on a C# IRC channel) that this was a known problem with their download setup. I wasn't the only person in my peer group to be experiencing this problem. In the end I gave up - I'm not cutting edge enough that I care too much, MSDN from 6 months ago is usually good enough. I was just trying to scratch my geek itch - you know, the "latest version" one.
Since I downloaded the last MSDN library no less than 9 times and each time got a corrupted file (yes, a 1.9GB corrupted file), I would have welcomed an official MS P2P download route - one of the more useful feature of BitTorrent on large files is that each chunk is hashed, and thus has good integrity.
Instead, there was just an MD5 checksum buried in the small print on the page, which is no help at all. The checksum validation in the install routine can detect that the archive is corrupted. Ok, it's nice to be able to tell if you got a pirate zombie MSDN library (presumably with some pages containing subtle advice on how to implement code with security holes - now we know why Windows is so insecure....) But what I really needed was a download protocol that provides for more error correction than HTTP.
Go, I say. Even if everyone disables the ability to upload, and all the data still comes from MS, it's still an improvement.
I made my living for two years playing PLO almost exclusively, at a high level (fuck you UIGEA and everyone who voted for you). You took a living playing poker. No-one makes a living gambling, they take it, from those people who actually do something productive for a living.
On those grounds, UIGEA does seem rather inconsistent for an administration that loves to support those who take their living from the efforts of others.
Conversely, there are now some health insurers who recognise this and will give a fair assessment to athletic people who have a high BMI because they are muscular, but you have to hunt them out.
Yes, the solution you propose is possible, and indeed, in progress.
You've probably seen something similar when you have to install an ActiveX control in IE (for a bank, or Windows Update). It asks i) if you'd like to install it and ii) If you'd like to trust the publisher in the future.
The binary is cryptographically signed which assures the computer that it is a product of the authorised holder of a particular crypto key. MS already uses this scheme for device drivers on 64-bit versions of Vista - at present, it can be disabled by a technically oriented user, but there's no guarantee that ability will persist.
The downside is twofold - firstly, for this measure to have any teeth, you have to remove the ability of the user to ignore it. Secondly, it provokes ideas like Microsofts "Trusted Computing" initiative (aka "Palladium"), which hands over full control of your computer to a short list of people who know the secret keys embedded in your motherboard. The main motivator for requiring signed drivers in Vista is to prevent the loading of things like virtual devices which can be used to capture perfect digital copies of DRM protected media. A secondary consideration is quality assurance.
At some point it is inevitable that MS operating systems will produce an API that permits calling programs to determine the presence of unsigned drivers or software, and refuse to perform certain functions (like playback of DRMed media). Heck, this shouldn't be hard to implement right now with a little effort. With TP, because the only trusted root certificates will be stored in inaccessible firmware, there will be no way for the user to sign drivers himself and mark them as trusted. Therefore MS (and anyone they care about pleasing) will be in control of what your computer can or cannot do.
If the pointer dangles in an area of memory that is now being used as an input buffer, overrun or not, that's step (a). Find an execution path which writes an input buffer to the memory the pointer previously referenced (and still does).
If there is a dangling pointer bug that is caused by branching execution to that dangling pointer, which normally would cause a crash, then that's your step (b) - find the crash, find an execution path that writes an input buffer over the dangling pointer, then run the crashing code again. The path now goes through your malformed buffer instead of the original code, grabbing control of the process.
This has five rotors, two kept in a separate box when not in use, which for a 1938 machine as claimed could make it either a Navy or Army machine. The serial number would indicate an army machine, but since the eBay pictures don't show a metal plate with the full serial number on, it's difficult to verify the manufacturer of the machine.
On looking at the rotors more closely, they are numbered, not lettered. All the discussions of Enigma machines I've ever seen indicate that the rotors should be lettered - all rotor key settings in Enigma documentation are expressed as a triad of letters. The operating procedure was initially that the rotors should be placed in the position of the day key, and then a message key would be sent twice, after which the operator would set the rotors to his message key and carry on. This made me suspicious, but numbered wheels seem to be common enough. There is a handy table in the lid to translate letters to numbers.
An alternate source of Enigma pieces would appear to corroborate this - this rotor has a similar serial number (A4955, the one on eBay is A3814), and has the same numbering, and high-bakelite construction. The bakelite was down to metal shortages in the latter years of the war in Germany, and having bakelite thumbwheels places the machine later than 1941 instead of 1938 as claimed.
Think it's a coincidence that they have chosen an area that has come under terrorist attack in the past? An area that has a high ratio of muslims in the population? The people round here would probably be more amenable to the same sort of frog-boiling.
Not to mention the even-more-creepy plans to implement "Road Pricing" by embedding a mandatory GPS tracker in every vehicle in Europe. Perhaps this is just another example of government buying two when they could have one, or maybe it's just turning up the gas under the frog for the GPS-based system.
I bought it from a branch of ASDA, with cash. Unless they have some very evil and sinister face-recognition system at the checkout I'm unaware of, TV licensing were not informed.
They already know my name though - I pay my TV license gladly and would happily pay double. £11 a month for 8 TV channels, heaven knows how many radio stations, and a huge website, full of world class, commercial free programming? Bargain! Watching a North American TV show on the BBC really brings it home - Star Trek lasts 42 minutes, meaning that those poor sods across the Atlantic are watching 18 minutes of commercials when they watch it.
And of course, the commercial channels have to keep their game sharp and their ad count low to keep up. Which means their quality has to be just as high. 12 minutes an hour is the norm for UK commercial terrestrial programming.
Of course they do it. It's what their business model is based on. Why else would they provide a 2GB mailbox, for free? If you don't like it, use the POP3 service.
I've done this, I walked out of a store that wanted my *address* to buy a TV tuner. They spouted some shit about it being policy for the TV licensing people. Which would be halfway credible, if the TV licensing people didn't already basically assume that everyone has a TV tuner of some sort until proven otherwise. Blatantly, it was for their marketing database.
I walked straight out and went to a supermarket and bought an equivalent device - without an interrogation. I'm not surprised they are scrabbling for profits in the form of extended warranties.
The cellular modem should provide an adequate backchannel. They even go so far as to budget 100 GBP for each unit.
But the key here is still the "GPS" part. Rather than the present efforts which involve number-plate recognising cameras, or my own personal design which utilises RFID enabled number plates and existing pickup loops in the roads (installed for traffic light sensors), this proposed system can (and does) track a road vehicle anywhere it goes. This is somewhat overboard for their stated aim of reducing congestion on key roads during rush hour.
Note in particular section 4.18 which mentions Galileo in this context. If you browse around for the financials, their projected revenues should pay for Galileo in very short order.
One reason for this sudden cooperation is that the US might want to be in on the party when it comes to the EU plans to implement a tracking system for every vehicle on its roads. This intention is revealed in UK Department for Transport documents that show that a high priority for our GPS-based "road pricing" system plans is compatibility with European systems.
Or it could be because Galileo is designed to be more effective in urban areas, which the US have taken to occupying recently.
That is an excellent hypothesis. Even if it's not true, I'll bet that if any Monsanto employee reads this, it will cease to be a hypothesis and become a business plan.
I keep thinking of this. Take one of those rubberised Corsair thumbdrives, remove the silicone glue wadding and replace it with thermite, add a magnesium fuse and a striker wire looped around the keyfob linkage. Keep all secure data on this. If apprehended, yank it from your keyfob forcibly and throw it at the first thing that appeals to you. Perhaps your stack of banned political comics.
Ok, it doesn't give you any kind of plausible deniability, but if your government has gone bad, that isn't going to matter, because they are going to lock you up anyway. You may as well destroy evidence that may incriminate others.
I don't think it's illegal for them to sell DVDs, but I would get major-league upset if they took technical measures to stop me recording their DVB-T transmissions. The advantage being that with enough disk space you can have a perfect broadcast quality backup of full seasons of programmes. The downside being that this is technically illegal (but I don't feel remotely guilty about it, because as someone noted, I paid for the programme to be made in the first place).
The important components are authoritarianism and unity with the state. This runs heavily contrary to the "freedom" ideals of the US Constitution. Racism is often involved, but usually as a means to promote unity (nothing unites a group like a common enemy, and racial groups are an easily identifiable target to build up into an enemy.)
The current administration would appear to be using terrorists in a similar way. Terrorists have the advantage of not having any civil rights (since they were all legislated away), and not being a productive segment of the US economy (so it doesn't affect profits when you lock them up without trial). Since they are also stereotypically of a different (arabic) race and culture, they make a great fascist unifier because very few of the general populace actually understand them. If the terror attacks were actually genuine, the other advantage of using terrorists as a fascist unifier is that they are actually guilty of being dangerous, so the government doesn't have to make up stuff about them, it just has to make sure they have a high profile in the news.
You can't get away with using ethnic groups common to the US, because the population is familiar with them and even respects them. How many people in New York have never visited a Jewish deli, for example? America prides itself on being a melting-pot, so if you want a target, you have to use a foreign one. Terrorist are ideal.
Just exactly how many terrorists do you think are in Afghanistan? As a fraction of the population? Think that justifies occupying the country? How about Iraq?
I work for a major UK public service, working on tools and content surrounding an international standard. A lot of the code is VB6 and VBA. And the bulk of it has "On Error Resume Next" at the top of every routine. One of our contractors has an IDE plugin that inserts this piece of code automatically (the very idea of this is enough to make me froth at the mouth).. The rationale is twofold ;
Unhandled errors off the top of the stack and terminate the program, which doesn't give you a chance to save your work. That's fair enough....
Apparently, users don't like seeing error dialogues
Neither of these is an excuse - where you expect errors, handle them. Where you don't, present them to the user, log them, email to the Pope, whatever your environment demands. Ignoring them is setting yourself up for immense pain, in the form of "it just doesn't work" bug reports from users that take an epic amount of time to resolve.
This isn't helped by the general style of the code, which is heavily error-dependant - ie, it uses error conditions to check for things like whether an item is in a collection or not. The VBA.Collection class has a lot to do with this as it doesn't have another means of checking for contents.
But I know for a fact there are places where actual logic errors occur in normal use, but it's one of those situations where are large part of the requirements are expressed as the codebase, and the specifications are so vague and complex that it's just easier to raise a sigh and accept it. Where possible, I replace the error handling with something more structured, and it's actually possible to get a stack dump out of a lot of the code when things go bad now.
There's no excuse. Yes, it makes your codebase and your binaries larger (but importantly, not slower). But you can have "proper" error handling in VB6. At my previous post, where I was the only programmer brought in to maintain another train wreck, they went from scratching their heads and guessing where the error was to knowing to the line where the error occurred and which values passed as parameters caused it. And my effort was running some automatic code inserters, rewriting any existing error handling, and recompiling the binary.
For one thing, nanotech isn't going to create itself, it's still going to be in the form of products you have to buy. If that is so, it's only because the technology is immature or artificially restricted. One of the holy grails of the nanotech enthusiast would be a system that is capable of producing all the components used in it's manufacture. Once such a system exists, you no longer have to buy it, you just have it make an extra one and give it to your neighbour. Of course, the same applies - those who have a vested interest in centralised capital are very likely to fight the distribution of such a device. At this point, the only things of value are energy, matter, and software, with software being by far the most valuable resource. In an ironic parallel, both the software and the hardware are now something that you can reproduce freely as long as you have the energy and mass. Tinfoil hatters would assume that this is why industry is going crazy over DRM but I think they're insane enough to want DRM just for awful pop music and crappy films.
For another, no matter how capable it may be, it's still going to require lots of energy to do the things you want. I'll agree with that one, but it would also be much easier to manufacture energy collection devices. In addition, imagine the increase in energy efficiency. If your car is made of incredibly strong, light materials, you can make it half the weight, twice as safe, and still save on fuel. Better insulation, less wastage in the manufacturing process. Many think it's feasible for society to make do entirely on solar energy with a developed molecular nanotechnology.
And that's all in the BEST CASE. Many imagine the best case to be better than you do.
It's not about the fuel : it's about the road maintenance. Those roads need building, resurfacing, repairing, etc.
Pedestrians and horses are not nearly as wearing on a road surface as a motor vehicle.
The reason that the costs are charged as a fuel tax? It's the nearest approximation to road wear you can get. Big vehicle that wears the roads out more? It uses more fuel. Drive more mileage? That uses more fuel too. The only alternative to determine the amount of road damage would involve logging all your journeys, which is an unacceptable burden for most motorists, although truck drivers have to do it to resolve their fuel taxes because they don't fall into the group of people who typically buy fuel close to where they drive.
Vehicles not powered by hydrocarbon fuels (in the "internal combusion engine" sense, and not the "metabolism" sense) are neglected because they are either too light to cause significant damage (bicycles) or uncommon enough in these times that legislation to cover them would cost more to administrate than it would make in charges. As non-fossil-fuelled vehicles become more popular, legislation will have to catch up. What will inevitably arise is "Road Pricing", a scheme where each vehicle is tracked and it's road use is taxed.
This is rapidly gaining traction in the EU and is probably the major driver for the new European Galileo GPS satellite cluster. For authoritarian government, it also has the happy side effect of requiring a system that can track every vehicle on the road. Fuel tax is not being used as justification for it here in the UK ; the spin is mostly about "reducing congestion", which I don't find to be credible - if congested roads are not incentive enough in themselves to stop driving on certain routes at certain times, then taxing people to do it isn't going to work either.
Slashdot Mirror
It is an nvidia board, but the firewall component isn't on ; I have a router running OpenWRT for that.
I have it from people inside MS (via a friend on a C# IRC channel) that this was a known problem with their download setup. I wasn't the only person in my peer group to be experiencing this problem. In the end I gave up - I'm not cutting edge enough that I care too much, MSDN from 6 months ago is usually good enough. I was just trying to scratch my geek itch - you know, the "latest version" one.
Since I downloaded the last MSDN library no less than 9 times and each time got a corrupted file (yes, a 1.9GB corrupted file), I would have welcomed an official MS P2P download route - one of the more useful feature of BitTorrent on large files is that each chunk is hashed, and thus has good integrity.
Instead, there was just an MD5 checksum buried in the small print on the page, which is no help at all. The checksum validation in the install routine can detect that the archive is corrupted. Ok, it's nice to be able to tell if you got a pirate zombie MSDN library (presumably with some pages containing subtle advice on how to implement code with security holes - now we know why Windows is so insecure....) But what I really needed was a download protocol that provides for more error correction than HTTP.
Go, I say. Even if everyone disables the ability to upload, and all the data still comes from MS, it's still an improvement.
On those grounds, UIGEA does seem rather inconsistent for an administration that loves to support those who take their living from the efforts of others.
Conversely, there are now some health insurers who recognise this and will give a fair assessment to athletic people who have a high BMI because they are muscular, but you have to hunt them out.
Yes, the solution you propose is possible, and indeed, in progress.
You've probably seen something similar when you have to install an ActiveX control in IE (for a bank, or Windows Update). It asks i) if you'd like to install it and ii) If you'd like to trust the publisher in the future.
The binary is cryptographically signed which assures the computer that it is a product of the authorised holder of a particular crypto key. MS already uses this scheme for device drivers on 64-bit versions of Vista - at present, it can be disabled by a technically oriented user, but there's no guarantee that ability will persist.
The downside is twofold - firstly, for this measure to have any teeth, you have to remove the ability of the user to ignore it. Secondly, it provokes ideas like Microsofts "Trusted Computing" initiative (aka "Palladium"), which hands over full control of your computer to a short list of people who know the secret keys embedded in your motherboard. The main motivator for requiring signed drivers in Vista is to prevent the loading of things like virtual devices which can be used to capture perfect digital copies of DRM protected media. A secondary consideration is quality assurance.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html
At some point it is inevitable that MS operating systems will produce an API that permits calling programs to determine the presence of unsigned drivers or software, and refuse to perform certain functions (like playback of DRMed media). Heck, this shouldn't be hard to implement right now with a little effort. With TP, because the only trusted root certificates will be stored in inaccessible firmware, there will be no way for the user to sign drivers himself and mark them as trusted. Therefore MS (and anyone they care about pleasing) will be in control of what your computer can or cannot do.
If the pointer dangles in an area of memory that is now being used as an input buffer, overrun or not, that's step (a). Find an execution path which writes an input buffer to the memory the pointer previously referenced (and still does).
If there is a dangling pointer bug that is caused by branching execution to that dangling pointer, which normally would cause a crash, then that's your step (b) - find the crash, find an execution path that writes an input buffer over the dangling pointer, then run the crashing code again. The path now goes through your malformed buffer instead of the original code, grabbing control of the process.
This has five rotors, two kept in a separate box when not in use, which for a 1938 machine as claimed could make it either a Navy or Army machine. The serial number would indicate an army machine, but since the eBay pictures don't show a metal plate with the full serial number on, it's difficult to verify the manufacturer of the machine.
On looking at the rotors more closely, they are numbered, not lettered. All the discussions of Enigma machines I've ever seen indicate that the rotors should be lettered - all rotor key settings in Enigma documentation are expressed as a triad of letters. The operating procedure was initially that the rotors should be placed in the position of the day key, and then a message key would be sent twice, after which the operator would set the rotors to his message key and carry on. This made me suspicious, but numbered wheels seem to be common enough. There is a handy table in the lid to translate letters to numbers.
An alternate source of Enigma pieces would appear to corroborate this - this rotor has a similar serial number (A4955, the one on eBay is A3814), and has the same numbering, and high-bakelite construction. The bakelite was down to metal shortages in the latter years of the war in Germany, and having bakelite thumbwheels places the machine later than 1941 instead of 1938 as claimed.
Manchester will be getting a similar system.
b ilitystudy/studyreport/feasibilitystudyofroadprici n4002?page=5#a1020
Think it's a coincidence that they have chosen an area that has come under terrorist attack in the past? An area that has a high ratio of muslims in the population? The people round here would probably be more amenable to the same sort of frog-boiling.
Not to mention the even-more-creepy plans to implement "Road Pricing" by embedding a mandatory GPS tracker in every vehicle in Europe. Perhaps this is just another example of government buying two when they could have one, or maybe it's just turning up the gas under the frog for the GPS-based system.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/roadpricing/feasi
Check sections 4.17 (they reveal they want the GPS trackers) and 4.46 (they reveal that it is to be compatible with a Europe-wide tracking system).
I bought it from a branch of ASDA, with cash. Unless they have some very evil and sinister face-recognition system at the checkout I'm unaware of, TV licensing were not informed.
They already know my name though - I pay my TV license gladly and would happily pay double. £11 a month for 8 TV channels, heaven knows how many radio stations, and a huge website, full of world class, commercial free programming? Bargain! Watching a North American TV show on the BBC really brings it home - Star Trek lasts 42 minutes, meaning that those poor sods across the Atlantic are watching 18 minutes of commercials when they watch it.
And of course, the commercial channels have to keep their game sharp and their ad count low to keep up. Which means their quality has to be just as high. 12 minutes an hour is the norm for UK commercial terrestrial programming.
Of course they do it. It's what their business model is based on. Why else would they provide a 2GB mailbox, for free? If you don't like it, use the POP3 service.
I've done this, I walked out of a store that wanted my *address* to buy a TV tuner. They spouted some shit about it being policy for the TV licensing people. Which would be halfway credible, if the TV licensing people didn't already basically assume that everyone has a TV tuner of some sort until proven otherwise. Blatantly, it was for their marketing database.
I walked straight out and went to a supermarket and bought an equivalent device - without an interrogation. I'm not surprised they are scrabbling for profits in the form of extended warranties.
The cellular modem should provide an adequate backchannel. They even go so far as to budget 100 GBP for each unit.
b ilitystudy/studyreport/feasibilitystudyofroadprici n4002?page=5#a1020
But the key here is still the "GPS" part. Rather than the present efforts which involve number-plate recognising cameras, or my own personal design which utilises RFID enabled number plates and existing pickup loops in the roads (installed for traffic light sensors), this proposed system can (and does) track a road vehicle anywhere it goes. This is somewhat overboard for their stated aim of reducing congestion on key roads during rush hour.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/roadpricing/feasi
Note in particular section 4.18 which mentions Galileo in this context. If you browse around for the financials, their projected revenues should pay for Galileo in very short order.
One reason for this sudden cooperation is that the US might want to be in on the party when it comes to the EU plans to implement a tracking system for every vehicle on its roads. This intention is revealed in UK Department for Transport documents that show that a high priority for our GPS-based "road pricing" system plans is compatibility with European systems.
Or it could be because Galileo is designed to be more effective in urban areas, which the US have taken to occupying recently.
That is an excellent hypothesis. Even if it's not true, I'll bet that if any Monsanto employee reads this, it will cease to be a hypothesis and become a business plan.
I dispute your claim that the growth in lawyers numbers is for a "good" reason. It might be clear and obvious, but it's not "good".
I keep thinking of this. Take one of those rubberised Corsair thumbdrives, remove the silicone glue wadding and replace it with thermite, add a magnesium fuse and a striker wire looped around the keyfob linkage. Keep all secure data on this. If apprehended, yank it from your keyfob forcibly and throw it at the first thing that appeals to you. Perhaps your stack of banned political comics.
Ok, it doesn't give you any kind of plausible deniability, but if your government has gone bad, that isn't going to matter, because they are going to lock you up anyway. You may as well destroy evidence that may incriminate others.
I don't think it's illegal for them to sell DVDs, but I would get major-league upset if they took technical measures to stop me recording their DVB-T transmissions. The advantage being that with enough disk space you can have a perfect broadcast quality backup of full seasons of programmes. The downside being that this is technically illegal (but I don't feel remotely guilty about it, because as someone noted, I paid for the programme to be made in the first place).
They probably don't, it's some sort of Van-Eck Phreaking thing.
These days they just rely on their huge database of the UK and do a SELECT * FROM uk_address WHERE has_a_tv_license = 0;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
The important components are authoritarianism and unity with the state. This runs heavily contrary to the "freedom" ideals of the US Constitution. Racism is often involved, but usually as a means to promote unity (nothing unites a group like a common enemy, and racial groups are an easily identifiable target to build up into an enemy.)
The current administration would appear to be using terrorists in a similar way. Terrorists have the advantage of not having any civil rights (since they were all legislated away), and not being a productive segment of the US economy (so it doesn't affect profits when you lock them up without trial). Since they are also stereotypically of a different (arabic) race and culture, they make a great fascist unifier because very few of the general populace actually understand them. If the terror attacks were actually genuine, the other advantage of using terrorists as a fascist unifier is that they are actually guilty of being dangerous, so the government doesn't have to make up stuff about them, it just has to make sure they have a high profile in the news.
You can't get away with using ethnic groups common to the US, because the population is familiar with them and even respects them. How many people in New York have never visited a Jewish deli, for example? America prides itself on being a melting-pot, so if you want a target, you have to use a foreign one. Terrorist are ideal.
Just exactly how many terrorists do you think are in Afghanistan? As a fraction of the population? Think that justifies occupying the country? How about Iraq?
.... a delicious moment of visualising Bruce Willis standing over GWB with a Desert Eagle, saying "Yippie kay ay, melonfarmer".
Wilful destruction of existing infrastructure for no reason exception to "cut off" their competitors? They're going to the special hell.
No, apparently not.
I work for a major UK public service, working on tools and content surrounding an international standard. A lot of the code is VB6 and VBA. And the bulk of it has "On Error Resume Next" at the top of every routine. One of our contractors has an IDE plugin that inserts this piece of code automatically (the very idea of this is enough to make me froth at the mouth).. The rationale is twofold ;
Neither of these is an excuse - where you expect errors, handle them. Where you don't, present them to the user, log them, email to the Pope, whatever your environment demands. Ignoring them is setting yourself up for immense pain, in the form of "it just doesn't work" bug reports from users that take an epic amount of time to resolve.
This isn't helped by the general style of the code, which is heavily error-dependant - ie, it uses error conditions to check for things like whether an item is in a collection or not. The VBA.Collection class has a lot to do with this as it doesn't have another means of checking for contents.
But I know for a fact there are places where actual logic errors occur in normal use, but it's one of those situations where are large part of the requirements are expressed as the codebase, and the specifications are so vague and complex that it's just easier to raise a sigh and accept it. Where possible, I replace the error handling with something more structured, and it's actually possible to get a stack dump out of a lot of the code when things go bad now.
There's no excuse. Yes, it makes your codebase and your binaries larger (but importantly, not slower). But you can have "proper" error handling in VB6. At my previous post, where I was the only programmer brought in to maintain another train wreck, they went from scratching their heads and guessing where the error was to knowing to the line where the error occurred and which values passed as parameters caused it. And my effort was running some automatic code inserters, rewriting any existing error handling, and recompiling the binary.
http://foresight.org/
Is it not the case that Pokémon you raise from a lower level yourself end up tougher than ones you catch in the wild at the same level?
It's not about the fuel : it's about the road maintenance. Those roads need building, resurfacing, repairing, etc.
Pedestrians and horses are not nearly as wearing on a road surface as a motor vehicle.
The reason that the costs are charged as a fuel tax? It's the nearest approximation to road wear you can get. Big vehicle that wears the roads out more? It uses more fuel. Drive more mileage? That uses more fuel too. The only alternative to determine the amount of road damage would involve logging all your journeys, which is an unacceptable burden for most motorists, although truck drivers have to do it to resolve their fuel taxes because they don't fall into the group of people who typically buy fuel close to where they drive.
Vehicles not powered by hydrocarbon fuels (in the "internal combusion engine" sense, and not the "metabolism" sense) are neglected because they are either too light to cause significant damage (bicycles) or uncommon enough in these times that legislation to cover them would cost more to administrate than it would make in charges. As non-fossil-fuelled vehicles become more popular, legislation will have to catch up. What will inevitably arise is "Road Pricing", a scheme where each vehicle is tracked and it's road use is taxed.
This is rapidly gaining traction in the EU and is probably the major driver for the new European Galileo GPS satellite cluster. For authoritarian government, it also has the happy side effect of requiring a system that can track every vehicle on the road. Fuel tax is not being used as justification for it here in the UK ; the spin is mostly about "reducing congestion", which I don't find to be credible - if congested roads are not incentive enough in themselves to stop driving on certain routes at certain times, then taxing people to do it isn't going to work either.