If you "tax the hell out of fuel guzzling monster cars," then you are skipping taxation of older fuel guzzling cars that are not as efficient as the newest SUVs.
If you tax gasoline more, you increase the burden on everyone, including poor people that cannot afford to buy a new gas-efficient car. You increase the cost of all goods that are shipped anywhere, or the cost of services that rely on those goods or shipping services.
And where does the tax money go? Does it fund research on alternative fuel sources? No, it is spent on pork barrel projects by Congress.
As/if oil gets scarce, the price will go up naturally, and the market forces will dictate people drive more efficient cars or alternatively-fueled cars.
Artificial taxes on things only screw everything else up, with no actual benefits. Its just a political game.
A few dumbasses? They came from 5 different jurisdictions. I'm not sure it's an isolated case.
Are you kidding me? Do you even know how many cops and jurisdictions there are in the US? And how many do you hear about actually causing these kinds of problems? The majority of cops are good, and you don't hear about them too often because the news media likes negative press.
People in an unchecked position of power tend to abuse it.
That may be true, but cops are not in an unchecked position of power.
The rant may have been over the top, but it's not without its seed of truth.
Yes, it is. It's just paranoid, delusional ramblings based on the acts of a few cops.
Do you generally stereotype an entire group of people based on what just a few of them do?
This is coming from someone who equates what a few dumbasses do to what most cops do. If that were the case, based on your illogical and hate-filled rant, I might assume all people reading slashdot are morons.
If they want to recover the costs of providing services to the company they should tax the company.
Why "tax" the company, why not just sell the company services?
No company in history has ever paid any taxes whatsoever. Yes, they are taxed. And yes, those taxes are paid. But where do you think that money comes from? They hire fewer employees, or they pay their existing employees less, or they charge customers more, or they pay less dividends to shareholders. When you tax a company, you're just taxing people indirectly.
No, you moron, that's my point. It's not "says me." It's "says the Constitution of the United States of America." You know, that document our country was founded on, and which our courts and Congress are sworn to uphold?
That's actually one of the few things I am interested in the government doing more of.
I am afraid to say that in addition to being ignorant about the founding of our country, you are also pretty short-sighted. If you give the government more power over the distribution of wealth and how to spend it, trust me, the government will not spend the money THE WAY YOU WANT IT TO.
God, I can't believe I am defending Hillary Clinton.
Anyway. Two problems with your post.
1. Senator Clinton doesn't represent the government. She represents the plurality of people of NY that elected her.
2. Senator Clinton opposed the war, therefore even if she did "represent the government," I do not think it is hypocritical of her to blast the violence in the game.
Having said all that, this is an obvious ploy to make people her see her as a centrist instead of a leftist. In other words, politics as usual.
Who would you rather control it, corporations or governing bodies? Which do you feel you have more control of?
Corporations. At least with corporations I have the choice of not giving them my money. No such luck with the government. And if a corporation takes control of the internet in my area, sucks bad enough, and doesn't change due to market forces... I can move to another area. What can I do but leave the country if my government continues to fuck it up? Or worse, leave the planet if the UN fucks it up?
If you live in America and don't hold the view that our government is no longer elected by the people, than why do you believe the Internet can't be safely controlled by a governing body that we have a huge influence over?
No, we don't need better band-aids, we need cures. It starts with the credit bureaus and ends with them moving to a better system of identifying people that doesn't make identity theft so fucking easy.
Is it just me, or is this like the third story of personal information being stolen from California universities recently? WTF is going on over there?
As an aside, my girlfriend lives in California, and someone opened a credit card in her name soon after she had sent in applications to several California universities applying for grad school.
So why is it acceptable on a CS:Source server to "haze" women?
Perhaps you're just overly sensitive to bitching when it is directed at the females? When I play any game online, I would say more than half the time there are several individuals on there that act like total dickheads. It doesn't appear to be a female issue, but rather an issue where these people get off on being assholes, talking shit, etc. It happens in real life, too, in competitive sports. Guys "talkin' smack." Only difference is unless you know the person real well, you tone it down or risk getting a beating... on your face.
I can't tell you how fucking scary I find that comment. Really, I'm out of words here.
That's because you've been brainwashed. In reality, when normal, honest people have the guns, the criminals are more afraid to use theirs, and if they decide to do so anyway, they find a much quicker demise.
We pay taxes to maintain an army and police force.
That's right, and the police can't be everywhere at once.
You're just talking about "taking the law into your own hands"
No, it sounds to me like he was talking about self defense. Taking the law into your own hands is absolutely the wrong thing to do, and most gun-rights advocates do not condone such things.
gun types seem to think of as armed revolution. Words fail me.
I'm sorry you've been trained in government school and most likely be your family that "guns are bad." Guns are dangerous, guns should be handled with great respect, but they are not evil.
However, there are plenty of people out there that are evil -- and they have guns, and will use them.
I don't want to wait for the police to come in and save me, so I own a gun and have taken courses to learn how to safely store, carry, and use it if that terrible day comes when it is a choice between my life or theirs.
All applications and all files will load 15 percent faster?
It didn't say "all." Do you have to take everything so literally on an OS preview for something coming out in about 1-2 years from now?
Doesn't "Longhorn-savvy" kind of imply specific hardware is required?
Yeah, specific hardware is required to enable specific new features. Just like the NX bits in the newer CPUs like AMD64 require newer software (like WinXP SP2) for the new features to work. What is your point?
Surely time would have been better spent by programmers and engineers actually stopping the OS from crashing so much? I'm an OS X user, and I'll be the first to admit that when it does crash, it tends to crash badly, but at least (in my experience) the crashes are fairly rare (say, once a month) instead of upwards of one a day...
Are you seriously implying Windows XP crashes once a day? Windows XP is stable as long as the hardware you've got in your machine has stable drivers.
Your purchases aren't monitored and stored in huge server farms God-knows-where when you shop with cash. And that, to me, makes a hell of a difference.
Yes, and "they" have been doing this for years, and what harm has it caused me in all this time? None. What are they going to do, send me an advertisement for something I might want to buy. THE HORROR! How can I refuse to buy something I like?!
If I am concerned about a purchase being monitored, I'll use cash.
Conservatives don't hold the view that it is your right to kill yourself. Libertarians do.
However, the person I was responding to was most definitely a pro-life (when it comes to abortion) conservative. I can't help it if he didn't get the memo about the right-to-die cases.
Also, the only person who claims that Ms Schiavo said she wanted to die is the one person who stands the most to gain from her death.
What does he have to gain by her death? Any money from the insurance was long spent on keeping her body alive. He was offered $15 million to sign over the custodial rights to her parents, and refused to do so. And logic would dictate that he was in a much better position to have heard her wishes about this scenario compared to her parents, since he actually lived with her for the years preceding her accident.
So remind me again what he has to gain from her death? Peace of mind? After 15 years watching his brain dead wife be kept alive against her will, I'd say he's earned it.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, let's just tax everything.
If you "tax the hell out of fuel guzzling monster cars," then you are skipping taxation of older fuel guzzling cars that are not as efficient as the newest SUVs.
If you tax gasoline more, you increase the burden on everyone, including poor people that cannot afford to buy a new gas-efficient car. You increase the cost of all goods that are shipped anywhere, or the cost of services that rely on those goods or shipping services.
And where does the tax money go? Does it fund research on alternative fuel sources? No, it is spent on pork barrel projects by Congress.
As/if oil gets scarce, the price will go up naturally, and the market forces will dictate people drive more efficient cars or alternatively-fueled cars.
Artificial taxes on things only screw everything else up, with no actual benefits. Its just a political game.
Absolutely -- rest assured. Kids are now safe.
For 3 months.
Yours was a powerful, extremely engaging post that I found chock-full of interesting and insightful commentary!!!
Ummm, what power does the BSA wield? I'm talking about real power, not just what is in their own heads and PR?
A few dumbasses? They came from 5 different jurisdictions. I'm not sure it's an isolated case.
Are you kidding me? Do you even know how many cops and jurisdictions there are in the US? And how many do you hear about actually causing these kinds of problems? The majority of cops are good, and you don't hear about them too often because the news media likes negative press.
People in an unchecked position of power tend to abuse it.
That may be true, but cops are not in an unchecked position of power.
The rant may have been over the top, but it's not without its seed of truth.
Yes, it is. It's just paranoid, delusional ramblings based on the acts of a few cops.
Do you generally stereotype an entire group of people based on what just a few of them do?
You have no fucking clue how cops work.
This is coming from someone who equates what a few dumbasses do to what most cops do. If that were the case, based on your illogical and hate-filled rant, I might assume all people reading slashdot are morons.
See?
What we need is a sarcasm detector...........
(fill in rest of joke here)
If they want to recover the costs of providing services to the company they should tax the company.
Why "tax" the company, why not just sell the company services?
No company in history has ever paid any taxes whatsoever. Yes, they are taxed. And yes, those taxes are paid. But where do you think that money comes from? They hire fewer employees, or they pay their existing employees less, or they charge customers more, or they pay less dividends to shareholders. When you tax a company, you're just taxing people indirectly.
Says you.
No, you moron, that's my point. It's not "says me." It's "says the Constitution of the United States of America." You know, that document our country was founded on, and which our courts and Congress are sworn to uphold?
That's actually one of the few things I am interested in the government doing more of.
I am afraid to say that in addition to being ignorant about the founding of our country, you are also pretty short-sighted. If you give the government more power over the distribution of wealth and how to spend it, trust me, the government will not spend the money THE WAY YOU WANT IT TO.
That is the fucking point.
I still can't decide whether I love or hate this /. rhetorical trick of addressing someone civily before directly insulting them.
You, owner of the most wonderfully insightful nickname and poster of delightfully amusing and thoughtful messages, are a fucktard.
You're right, this is good stuff.
OK, now I've read the quote in context (as I did when she first uttered it), and I fail to see how this context makes the quote any less disgusting.
It is not the government's purpose to redistribute wealth, for the common good or not.
God, I can't believe I am defending Hillary Clinton.
Anyway. Two problems with your post.
1. Senator Clinton doesn't represent the government. She represents the plurality of people of NY that elected her.
2. Senator Clinton opposed the war, therefore even if she did "represent the government," I do not think it is hypocritical of her to blast the violence in the game.
Having said all that, this is an obvious ploy to make people her see her as a centrist instead of a leftist. In other words, politics as usual.
Who would you rather control it, corporations or governing bodies? Which do you feel you have more control of?
Corporations. At least with corporations I have the choice of not giving them my money. No such luck with the government. And if a corporation takes control of the internet in my area, sucks bad enough, and doesn't change due to market forces... I can move to another area. What can I do but leave the country if my government continues to fuck it up? Or worse, leave the planet if the UN fucks it up?
If you live in America and don't hold the view that our government is no longer elected by the people, than why do you believe the Internet can't be safely controlled by a governing body that we have a huge influence over?
One word answer: Politics.
You need this law at the federal level.
No, we don't need better band-aids, we need cures. It starts with the credit bureaus and ends with them moving to a better system of identifying people that doesn't make identity theft so fucking easy.
There are so many ways this is bad. So it's not a challenge nor even an interesting thought-experiment to write something about why this would be bad.
Instead, I would like to challenge someone to explain how this could possibly be a good thing.
P.S. The minute the UN controls the Internet is the minute I start a new network of unregulated computer systems on all the dark fiber.
That must be why iPods are never used for playing pirated music.
That must be because iPods are the most popular digital music players for accessing the most popular "legal" digital music store.
Is it just me, or is this like the third story of personal information being stolen from California universities recently? WTF is going on over there?
As an aside, my girlfriend lives in California, and someone opened a credit card in her name soon after she had sent in applications to several California universities applying for grad school.
So why is it acceptable on a CS:Source server to "haze" women?
Perhaps you're just overly sensitive to bitching when it is directed at the females? When I play any game online, I would say more than half the time there are several individuals on there that act like total dickheads. It doesn't appear to be a female issue, but rather an issue where these people get off on being assholes, talking shit, etc. It happens in real life, too, in competitive sports. Guys "talkin' smack." Only difference is unless you know the person real well, you tone it down or risk getting a beating... on your face.
What about apologies to me, too?
YMBNH
That is true.
However, in England it is illegal to own a kitchen knife.
So there are good and bad sides to it.
I can't tell you how fucking scary I find that comment. Really, I'm out of words here.
That's because you've been brainwashed. In reality, when normal, honest people have the guns, the criminals are more afraid to use theirs, and if they decide to do so anyway, they find a much quicker demise.
We pay taxes to maintain an army and police force.
That's right, and the police can't be everywhere at once.
You're just talking about "taking the law into your own hands"
No, it sounds to me like he was talking about self defense. Taking the law into your own hands is absolutely the wrong thing to do, and most gun-rights advocates do not condone such things.
gun types seem to think of as armed revolution. Words fail me.
I'm sorry you've been trained in government school and most likely be your family that "guns are bad." Guns are dangerous, guns should be handled with great respect, but they are not evil.
However, there are plenty of people out there that are evil -- and they have guns, and will use them.
I don't want to wait for the police to come in and save me, so I own a gun and have taken courses to learn how to safely store, carry, and use it if that terrible day comes when it is a choice between my life or theirs.
How was the figure arrived at exactly?
Testing?
All applications and all files will load 15 percent faster?
It didn't say "all." Do you have to take everything so literally on an OS preview for something coming out in about 1-2 years from now?
Doesn't "Longhorn-savvy" kind of imply specific hardware is required?
Yeah, specific hardware is required to enable specific new features. Just like the NX bits in the newer CPUs like AMD64 require newer software (like WinXP SP2) for the new features to work. What is your point?
Surely time would have been better spent by programmers and engineers actually stopping the OS from crashing so much? I'm an OS X user, and I'll be the first to admit that when it does crash, it tends to crash badly, but at least (in my experience) the crashes are fairly rare (say, once a month) instead of upwards of one a day...
Are you seriously implying Windows XP crashes once a day? Windows XP is stable as long as the hardware you've got in your machine has stable drivers.
Your purchases aren't monitored and stored in huge server farms God-knows-where when you shop with cash. And that, to me, makes a hell of a difference.
Yes, and "they" have been doing this for years, and what harm has it caused me in all this time? None. What are they going to do, send me an advertisement for something I might want to buy. THE HORROR! How can I refuse to buy something I like?!
If I am concerned about a purchase being monitored, I'll use cash.
Or someone else's credit card.
Conservatives don't hold the view that it is your right to kill yourself. Libertarians do.
However, the person I was responding to was most definitely a pro-life (when it comes to abortion) conservative. I can't help it if he didn't get the memo about the right-to-die cases.
Also, the only person who claims that Ms Schiavo said she wanted to die is the one person who stands the most to gain from her death.
What does he have to gain by her death? Any money from the insurance was long spent on keeping her body alive. He was offered $15 million to sign over the custodial rights to her parents, and refused to do so. And logic would dictate that he was in a much better position to have heard her wishes about this scenario compared to her parents, since he actually lived with her for the years preceding her accident.
So remind me again what he has to gain from her death? Peace of mind? After 15 years watching his brain dead wife be kept alive against her will, I'd say he's earned it.