I'm sorry, but Eclipse just runs from the decompressed download, even if it's on your desktop.
No it doesn't. Eclipse runs in my admin account but every tyme I start it in my user account I get error messages. Sure, I could use the admin account but I don't want to screw up things. I can easily delete then create a new user account, if I really needed to, without messing anything else up. I only use the admin account to install hardware and software and to update my system.
only having a very cursory knowledge of what happened in Java 6 and none of what's due in 7
I'm trying to learn Java 6 now.
Swing is better than programming in C using the Windows API directly... and that's about as much as I'll grant.
Swing is also cross platform whereas Windows APIs are tied to Windows. I can run Eclipse on my Mac to program software in Java that will run on Linux, OS X, and Windows.
That was part of the problem,.net wasn't cross platform capable until Mono came along. MS ties it's tech to it's own products, or threatens to drop support. I can easily imagine MS Embracing, Extending, and Extinguishing Mono and.net on Linux. Meanwhile I use Eclipse for Java, and can use it for other languages as well, on my Mac. And if and when I finally rebuild my Linux PC I can use Eclipse on it as well.
Mac development has always been a niche job and learning the specifics library methods to make Java apps "work" like native mac applications I can't see much reason in not just writing it in Objective-C.
This has a similar problem, using Mac specific GUIs it's no longer cross platform. And Objective-C isn't cross platform either.
for a lot of us (like me) our CS programs focused on CS
That's how it should be, CS shouldn't focus on specific tools but on general principles.
I'm sorry. You still not seem to understand the actual topic of the discussion. It has nothing whatseover to do with climate - but everything to do with greenhouses.
to me what is important is not whether a market is free or non-free, but whether the market is well-regulated or not. And we should focus on how to have a well-regulated market, not on how free it is.[1]
And regulations may make things worse not better. The US government wanted banks to make loans to those who could not afford them guarantying some of the mortgages.
There have been arguments that the regulators should be people from the industry
If you're not going to have someone who has worked in a given industry then who are you going to regulate it? How can anyone who does not know it regulate it? At the same tyme if it's someone from the industry then as you say they could be all chummy with businesses in the industry. One solution is a committee, which will then seek to extend it's own power.
[1] Similarly there's always this popular debate about big vs small government, I find that rather stupid since what seems far more important is the quality of the government, not the quantity of it.
How is it possible to guaranty quality when quantity is large? With businesses efficiency is a concern, but as another slashdotter's sig says when efficiency is a big concern of government it can lead to fascism.
Look at his other business ventures after broadcast.com. They're all massive dogs.
I don't know, I don't watch sports. The only other business I know he's in now is Landmark Theatres, which is my favorite cinema chain. I haven't gone to a movie there that was a dog, box office sales wise at least. Actually he may be bringing cinemas into the 21th century. While other chains send movies on film to theatres he uses broadband to send those available digitally.
Of course I didn't find out he owned Landmark 'til after watching movies I loved that only played there to begin with. I noticed some of the movies was played at traditional theatres after being shown there.
It doesn't look like it works with investment portfolios, does it? I've searched for FOSS programs that do but haven't been able to find any offering something more than bank account balancing. Certainly nothing like Quicken or higher priced packages. And I can't justify the expense now.
So he built broadcast.com, sold it to Yahoo! and made a ton of money: what else has Cuban done? I mean really?
He started other businesses before Broadcast.com. He started MicroSolutions which Ross Perot's Perot Systems was one of his biggest clients. He later sold it to Compuserve.
ixed that for you. No business survives beyond their normal lifetime in the market.
Well. that's clearly not the case.
Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, JP Morgan etc etc etc. If you have a friend in the government, you can get them to tax the people to guarantee your profits.
In a free market none of these companies would have been bailed out. Instead they would have been forced to declare bankruptcy, then those competitors that did not make bad decisions would have continued to live.
I agree... Its called capitalism... If true capitalism existed, then large companies would be rare because competition would quickly reduce their profit margins to the point where very little money could be made.
In a true free market and capitalism there's another reason large corporations would be rare, because many would have their corporate charters revoked [pdf warning]. Such as Exxon, those people who had their lives wrecked because of Exxon Valdez, have not received a dime from Exxon. And Union Carbide, for it's Bhopal disaster. There are more than 1000 Superfund sites listed, many created by businesses, which taxpayers will pay to clean up if they are ever cleaned up.
What he's really complaining about is that there's a competitor that's out there forcing the price he can get to roughly approximate the marginal cost of production.
He, who, Mark Cuban? After building his own businesses, selling non-free stuff, Mark Cuban became one of the world's wealthiest men.
Sorry it took a while to reply. When I tried to read what you linked to yesterday I didn't get a response. And today I got this:
"The requested URL is unavailable at this time. The following error was reported:
Failed to connect to server"
I wanted to see what it says, this summer is the coolest I've seen in the 11 years I've been here. But winter was mild.
Reagan fought the good fight for fiscal conservatism,
No he didn't, Reagan increased military spending and gave a boost to a police state. Fiscally all he tried to do was cut social programs, the favorite target of social conservatives. Of course many social liberals aren't any better.
He at least proved Laffer correct.
How so? By the end of the Reagan and Bush Sr years they had created the USA's largest budget deficit up to that tyme. Only Bush Jr surpassed them. When Clinton came into office he inherited a huge deficit and almost eliminated it by the tyme he left office.
Newt's congress wasn't bad, but that lasted less than 2 years before the rot set in.
It doesn't matter whether the Democrats or the Republicans are in power, they both have their pork barrel projects they want to fund with taxpayer money.
Falcon
Fiscally conservative, socially liberal, and proud of it!
No. Please no more coverage in Yosemite or death valley or any other part of the "great outdoors". I go to these places to get away from everything - not to listen to some stupid idiot blabbering away on his cell phone.
I may say the same about voice communications but not for data. I'd love to be able to hike in the "great outdoors" with my camera and when my cards got full be able to upload the photos to my server. I'd like to do the same thing when I'm offshore scuba diving. Sending data could prove useful but I don't see much use for calling someone to talk to them.
But you have to wonder, if a carrier were to have terrible coverage in the city, would it be reasonable to expect that the in-between stuff is horrible as well?
Maybe, maybe not. Structures like buildings block airwaves, so larger cities have to have more towers in order to cover the same area. However in rural areas that's scarcely populated it may not be cost effective to erect enough towers for good coverage.
Get me some coverage in Yosemite. Death Valley. Appalachia. Crater Lake. Yellowstone. Shasta. Mt. McKinley. Grand Canyon. From Blaine, WA to Miami, FL. San Diego, CA to Eastport, ME. Cover it all and let us get on with really living in this great big country of ours.
Oh, I agree. I love hiking, scuba diving, and photography and I'd love to be able to upload my photos to a server while out hiking or after I surface from a dive.
You'll be careful to note that in these endless commercials about high speed internet from any company they're careful to never put any number in it except the phone number to call. So it's not so much that they're lying -- it's really more that they're speaking sweet nothings, which is perfectly legal (and disingenuous).
I have a big problem with ComCast's ads and junk mail. One thing that bothers me is their ads saying they're faster than DSL. Sure theoretically cable can be faster, but on a shared line, if a bunch of people are using net access at the same tyme it will slow down. DSL though is a dedicated line. Now if cable cos were to upgrade to DOCSIS 3 they would have faster speeds.
Comcast delivers an acceptable experience to a certain class of internet users and has crafted their service accordingly. The problem is that this service isn't tiered or can be adapted to serve several different markets. There is only one service, one market, and if you don't like it--you may not have any other options.
Any business in the same position and market(s) as Comcast would be doing the exact same thing, because Comcast doesn't exist to bring internet to the masses
As a corporation with limited liability ComCast is supposed to serve the common or public good, that is the only reason businesses were given limited liability by incorporating. See this post of mine for more.
And the reason why service is shit in so many parts of this country isn't because of Evil BigCorp and their profiteering ways, but rather;
a) Infrastructure costs are a very high barrier to entry into the market.
It's expensive for landlines not for wireless. The expense with wireless is the licensing.
b) Municipalities create a byzantine and very expensive approval process that takes a very, very long time to get through.... Comcast has already laid out all of these funds -- and it had to deliver crappy service to pay for the tariffs imposed by an exceptionally long line of government agents who all wanted their say and their pound of flesh.
Companies like ComCast and ATT were given natural monopolies, exclusive rights to the use of right of ways, by those governments. And even now those corporations are trying to stop competition.
c) And last, frankly, who gives a crap about infrastructure in this country anyway. Don't we have bigger problems, like unemployment, roads that are falling apart, bridges falling down, a health care crisis brought on by the poor spending habits and planning of an entire generation, and paying how much to bomb how many countries with unpronouncable names again? Please -- internet is a low priority for our government, and it's constituent population.
An improved infrastructure can help the economy, whether it's bridges, broadband, or roads. And the "health care crisis", if there is one, is because there is not a free market in health care. As for attacking other countries, many of us were against the attacks. Other's fell for the lies told to sell war. The Taliban asked to see evidence bin Laden had anything to do with 911 but was told to get lost. And Iraq was invaded because Saddam was supposed to have WMDs. Well I've been waiting to see them, but haven't yet.
Now I'm not saying nothing should have been done about either the Taliban or Saddam, something should have been done. Such as not having supported the Taliban and Saddam to begin with. Yes the US supported both throughout the 1980s. The US supported the Mujahideen in Afghanistan after the Soviet invasion there. Once the Soviet left US
if you really want the rich to pay relatively more (and I think they should), then an income or asset tax seems best. The only issue is the various citys/counties/states all do that inependently. There needs to be some federal oversight of this process.
And what is an asset tax if not a property tax? And where in the Constitution of the USA does it give the federal government the "oversight of this process" power? It doesn't other than the interstate commerce clause, and the 10th Amendment specifically states that what power the Constitution does not give the feds is reserved for the states and people.
There is also the nasty issue of the borders between a heavily populated and more sparsely populated city/country/state. The sparsely populated area will lower it's fuel tax, and make a good profit on all the people close to the border who only use it's roads to fill up at the on-the-border gas stations. This causes a free-loader problem in the heavily populated area (and any tourist destinations) with regard to the roads.
Federal fuel taxes should pay for federal roads, state fuel tax pays for state roads, and county/city tax pays for their roads. The only thing that would change would be the county/city tax, unless the driver lives next to a border. But how many do?
I'd also say that fuel taxes should heavily subsidize public transit. After all, the people who have less traffic to deal with definitely benefit from reliable public transit.
BS! Public transit is already cheaper, if cost of the vehicle, insurance, fuel, and maintenance is considered. Drivers shouldn't be subsidizing them further.
Property taxes should pay for schools, fire, parks, and police.
I don't know why property taxes should pay for any of those, as opposed to say, an income tax.
Because it's wrong to tax what people work to earn. Without property, real estate, there is little need for fire protection or parks, and it reduces the need for police.
Again, people who don't own property in a city but commute there for jobs/shopping/nightlife act as freeloaders, profiting off the largess of condo dwellers.
First, I live in the city. Downtown Minneapolis is 10 to 15 minutes bike ride for me, in case you get the idea I want to "freeload". Secondly even those who do not own property, anywhere, still pays property tax. The owner of said property includes taxes when setting rent. That applies to businesses as well. That employer the employee drives into the city to work for, they pay property tax too, so are not able to pay employees as much. The only entities that do not pay taxes are governments.
the more your drive the more you should pay. Now this presents a problem with more fuel efficient vehicles.
Depends a bit on your perspective. To some extent less fuel-efficient vehicles tend to put more wear on the road (eg a pickup-truck vs a sub-compact).
To an extent more fuel efficient vehicles do put less wear and tear of roads, but it's not necessarily true in all cases. A 35 mpg in the city truck could put more stress on the road than a sedan that gets 30 mpg. That is if there were some trucks that got that, I'd love to have one, but I expect there will be some in the future.
Between those two factors, a higher gas-tax kills 2 birds with one stone:
1. Tax for wear on highways that automatically factors in vehicle size
2. Subsidy for fuel-efficient vehicles (and penalty for gas-guzzlers)
I heard one proposal, and have made it myself on slashdot afterwards, about taxing miles driven. The first tyme a vehicle is registered it's odometer is read. Then when it's renewed the odometer is read again and the owner is assessed a fee based on mileage driven. Now a lot of people won't like to have to pay one big bill when they renew their tags, so what could be done is the owner could pay for the mileage driven monthly. Much like the self employed and others who do not have an employer deduct taxes from pay will send the IRS an estimate of the taxes owed.
The UMass link you provide says nothing about greenhouses gases. The closest it comes to the word "gas" is "gasketing". And though the other link does us "gas" and "carbon dioxide" it says nothing about whether greenhouse gases, which is not used.
You have provided no links to evidence to support your position but I have, including the Penn State link above which you obviously did not read or you're just acting like a troll. Just in case you're not trolling here are some more links:
I'm sorry, but you have not sourced your statement at all. You claim that growers add CO2 to greenhourses in order to raise the temperature.
They do not. They add CO2 since it makes the plants grow better.
They do, and I did provide a source, but I guess your selective reading field distorted reality around you because you missed what was said in the Penn State link I provided. Mainly this: "Greenhouse gases are so-called because they act to warm the earth in the same way that a greenhouse warms plants." Also try this, "What Causes the Greenhouse Effect?". Notice where it says:
"Although greenhouse gases make up only about 1 percent of the Earth's atmosphere, they regulate our climate by trapping heat and holding it in a kind of warm-air blanket that surrounds the planet."
"This phenomenon is what scientists call the "greenhouse effect." Without it, scientists estimate that the average temperature on Earth would be colder by approximately 30 degrees Celsius (54 degrees Fahrenheit), far too cold to sustain our current ecosystem.'
YOU made the erroneous connection between the proposal that higher CO2 in modern times is increasing global temperature
Can you show me one tyme I said higher CO2 levels in modern tymes is increasing global temperatures? This is the first tyme I even recall using "modern" in this thread. What I do recall is saying that greenhouse gases are called that because they increase temperatures in greenhouses.
Falcon
Neither of these are unique features of XHTML.
on
XHTML 2 Cancelled
·
· Score: 1
HTML is case insensitive, so you can use lower case tags if you wish
I know but I've tried to read too many html documents where all the tags are capitalized. As strange as it may seem looking at all the caps give me a headache.
XHTML 1 has exactly the same semantics as HTML 4.01, so XHTML and HTML are equally strict and separate content from structure to exactly the same extent.
I've seen many more html pages with inline styles than I have with xhtml, as a ratio between style sheets and inline styles for xhtml and html.
I think the only major difference in the code is the self closing tags.
I have no problem with self closing tags. I started with html4, then when I started xhtml at first some things seemed strange such as self closing tags but I picked them up quickly. Now it makes sense to close all tags.
Just like xhtml, most attributes that have to do with styling in tags have been deprecated.
Currently I don't know CSS well, then again I haven't created webpages much in a few years, but it seems logical to separate content from style.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry, but Eclipse just runs from the decompressed download, even if it's on your desktop.
No it doesn't. Eclipse runs in my admin account but every tyme I start it in my user account I get error messages. Sure, I could use the admin account but I don't want to screw up things. I can easily delete then create a new user account, if I really needed to, without messing anything else up. I only use the admin account to install hardware and software and to update my system.
Falcon
only having a very cursory knowledge of what happened in Java 6 and none of what's due in 7
I'm trying to learn Java 6 now.
Swing is better than programming in C using the Windows API directly... and that's about as much as I'll grant.
Swing is also cross platform whereas Windows APIs are tied to Windows. I can run Eclipse on my Mac to program software in Java that will run on Linux, OS X, and Windows.
if you're primarily a Windows developer
That was part of the problem, .net wasn't cross platform capable until Mono came along. MS ties it's tech to it's own products, or threatens to drop support. I can easily imagine MS Embracing, Extending, and Extinguishing Mono and .net on Linux. Meanwhile I use Eclipse for Java, and can use it for other languages as well, on my Mac. And if and when I finally rebuild my Linux PC I can use Eclipse on it as well.
Mac development has always been a niche job and learning the specifics library methods to make Java apps "work" like native mac applications I can't see much reason in not just writing it in Objective-C.
This has a similar problem, using Mac specific GUIs it's no longer cross platform. And Objective-C isn't cross platform either.
for a lot of us (like me) our CS programs focused on CS
That's how it should be, CS shouldn't focus on specific tools but on general principles.
Falcon
I'm sorry. You still not seem to understand the actual topic of the discussion. It has nothing whatseover to do with climate - but everything to do with greenhouses.
No, once again you're trolling.
Falcon
to me what is important is not whether a market is free or non-free, but whether the market is well-regulated or not. And we should focus on how to have a well-regulated market, not on how free it is.[1]
And regulations may make things worse not better. The US government wanted banks to make loans to those who could not afford them guarantying some of the mortgages.
There have been arguments that the regulators should be people from the industry
If you're not going to have someone who has worked in a given industry then who are you going to regulate it? How can anyone who does not know it regulate it? At the same tyme if it's someone from the industry then as you say they could be all chummy with businesses in the industry. One solution is a committee, which will then seek to extend it's own power.
[1] Similarly there's always this popular debate about big vs small government, I find that rather stupid since what seems far more important is the quality of the government, not the quantity of it.
How is it possible to guaranty quality when quantity is large? With businesses efficiency is a concern, but as another slashdotter's sig says when efficiency is a big concern of government it can lead to fascism.
Look at his other business ventures after broadcast.com. They're all massive dogs.
I don't know, I don't watch sports. The only other business I know he's in now is Landmark Theatres, which is my favorite cinema chain. I haven't gone to a movie there that was a dog, box office sales wise at least. Actually he may be bringing cinemas into the 21th century. While other chains send movies on film to theatres he uses broadband to send those available digitally.
Of course I didn't find out he owned Landmark 'til after watching movies I loved that only played there to begin with. I noticed some of the movies was played at traditional theatres after being shown there.
www.lucernesys.com Horizon: Calendar-based personal finance
It doesn't look like it works with investment portfolios, does it? I've searched for FOSS programs that do but haven't been able to find any offering something more than bank account balancing. Certainly nothing like Quicken or higher priced packages. And I can't justify the expense now.
Falcon
So he built broadcast.com, sold it to Yahoo! and made a ton of money: what else has Cuban done? I mean really?
He started other businesses before Broadcast.com. He started MicroSolutions which Ross Perot's Perot Systems was one of his biggest clients. He later sold it to Compuserve.
Falcon
ixed that for you. No business survives beyond their normal lifetime in the market.
Well. that's clearly not the case.
Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, JP Morgan etc etc etc. If you have a friend in the government, you can get them to tax the people to guarantee your profits.
In a free market none of these companies would have been bailed out. Instead they would have been forced to declare bankruptcy, then those competitors that did not make bad decisions would have continued to live.
Falcon
I agree... Its called capitalism... If true capitalism existed, then large companies would be rare because competition would quickly reduce their profit margins to the point where very little money could be made.
In a true free market and capitalism there's another reason large corporations would be rare, because many would have their corporate charters revoked [pdf warning]. Such as Exxon, those people who had their lives wrecked because of Exxon Valdez, have not received a dime from Exxon. And Union Carbide, for it's Bhopal disaster. There are more than 1000 Superfund sites listed, many created by businesses, which taxpayers will pay to clean up if they are ever cleaned up.
Falcon
What he's really complaining about is that there's a competitor that's out there forcing the price he can get to roughly approximate the marginal cost of production.
He, who, Mark Cuban? After building his own businesses, selling non-free stuff, Mark Cuban became one of the world's wealthiest men.
Falcon
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/comparison.html
Sorry it took a while to reply. When I tried to read what you linked to yesterday I didn't get a response. And today I got this:
"The requested URL is unavailable at this time. The following error was reported:
Failed to connect to server"
I wanted to see what it says, this summer is the coolest I've seen in the 11 years I've been here. But winter was mild.
Falcon
Reagan fought the good fight for fiscal conservatism,
No he didn't, Reagan increased military spending and gave a boost to a police state. Fiscally all he tried to do was cut social programs, the favorite target of social conservatives. Of course many social liberals aren't any better.
He at least proved Laffer correct.
How so? By the end of the Reagan and Bush Sr years they had created the USA's largest budget deficit up to that tyme. Only Bush Jr surpassed them. When Clinton came into office he inherited a huge deficit and almost eliminated it by the tyme he left office.
Newt's congress wasn't bad, but that lasted less than 2 years before the rot set in.
It doesn't matter whether the Democrats or the Republicans are in power, they both have their pork barrel projects they want to fund with taxpayer money.
Falcon
Fiscally conservative, socially liberal, and proud of it!
No. Please no more coverage in Yosemite or death valley or any other part of the "great outdoors". I go to these places to get away from everything - not to listen to some stupid idiot blabbering away on his cell phone.
I may say the same about voice communications but not for data. I'd love to be able to hike in the "great outdoors" with my camera and when my cards got full be able to upload the photos to my server. I'd like to do the same thing when I'm offshore scuba diving. Sending data could prove useful but I don't see much use for calling someone to talk to them.
Falcon
But you have to wonder, if a carrier were to have terrible coverage in the city, would it be reasonable to expect that the in-between stuff is horrible as well?
Maybe, maybe not. Structures like buildings block airwaves, so larger cities have to have more towers in order to cover the same area. However in rural areas that's scarcely populated it may not be cost effective to erect enough towers for good coverage.
Falcon
Get me some coverage in Yosemite. Death Valley. Appalachia. Crater Lake. Yellowstone. Shasta. Mt. McKinley. Grand Canyon. From Blaine, WA to Miami, FL. San Diego, CA to Eastport, ME. Cover it all and let us get on with really living in this great big country of ours.
Oh, I agree. I love hiking, scuba diving, and photography and I'd love to be able to upload my photos to a server while out hiking or after I surface from a dive.
Falcon
You'll be careful to note that in these endless commercials about high speed internet from any company they're careful to never put any number in it except the phone number to call. So it's not so much that they're lying -- it's really more that they're speaking sweet nothings, which is perfectly legal (and disingenuous).
I have a big problem with ComCast's ads and junk mail. One thing that bothers me is their ads saying they're faster than DSL. Sure theoretically cable can be faster, but on a shared line, if a bunch of people are using net access at the same tyme it will slow down. DSL though is a dedicated line. Now if cable cos were to upgrade to DOCSIS 3 they would have faster speeds.
Comcast delivers an acceptable experience to a certain class of internet users and has crafted their service accordingly. The problem is that this service isn't tiered or can be adapted to serve several different markets. There is only one service, one market, and if you don't like it--you may not have any other options.
No, ComCast offers different business class access plans.
Any business in the same position and market(s) as Comcast would be doing the exact same thing, because Comcast doesn't exist to bring internet to the masses
As a corporation with limited liability ComCast is supposed to serve the common or public good, that is the only reason businesses were given limited liability by incorporating. See this post of mine for more.
And the reason why service is shit in so many parts of this country isn't because of Evil BigCorp and their profiteering ways, but rather;
a) Infrastructure costs are a very high barrier to entry into the market.
It's expensive for landlines not for wireless. The expense with wireless is the licensing.
b) Municipalities create a byzantine and very expensive approval process that takes a very, very long time to get through.... Comcast has already laid out all of these funds -- and it had to deliver crappy service to pay for the tariffs imposed by an exceptionally long line of government agents who all wanted their say and their pound of flesh.
Companies like ComCast and ATT were given natural monopolies, exclusive rights to the use of right of ways, by those governments. And even now those corporations are trying to stop competition.
c) And last, frankly, who gives a crap about infrastructure in this country anyway. Don't we have bigger problems, like unemployment, roads that are falling apart, bridges falling down, a health care crisis brought on by the poor spending habits and planning of an entire generation, and paying how much to bomb how many countries with unpronouncable names again? Please -- internet is a low priority for our government, and it's constituent population.
An improved infrastructure can help the economy, whether it's bridges, broadband, or roads. And the "health care crisis", if there is one, is because there is not a free market in health care. As for attacking other countries, many of us were against the attacks. Other's fell for the lies told to sell war. The Taliban asked to see evidence bin Laden had anything to do with 911 but was told to get lost. And Iraq was invaded because Saddam was supposed to have WMDs. Well I've been waiting to see them, but haven't yet.
Now I'm not saying nothing should have been done about either the Taliban or Saddam, something should have been done. Such as not having supported the Taliban and Saddam to begin with. Yes the US supported both throughout the 1980s. The US supported the Mujahideen in Afghanistan after the Soviet invasion there. Once the Soviet left US
if you really want the rich to pay relatively more (and I think they should), then an income or asset tax seems best. The only issue is the various citys/counties/states all do that inependently. There needs to be some federal oversight of this process.
And what is an asset tax if not a property tax? And where in the Constitution of the USA does it give the federal government the "oversight of this process" power? It doesn't other than the interstate commerce clause, and the 10th Amendment specifically states that what power the Constitution does not give the feds is reserved for the states and people.
Falcon
There is also the nasty issue of the borders between a heavily populated and more sparsely populated city/country/state. The sparsely populated area will lower it's fuel tax, and make a good profit on all the people close to the border who only use it's roads to fill up at the on-the-border gas stations. This causes a free-loader problem in the heavily populated area (and any tourist destinations) with regard to the roads.
Federal fuel taxes should pay for federal roads, state fuel tax pays for state roads, and county/city tax pays for their roads. The only thing that would change would be the county/city tax, unless the driver lives next to a border. But how many do?
I'd also say that fuel taxes should heavily subsidize public transit. After all, the people who have less traffic to deal with definitely benefit from reliable public transit.
BS! Public transit is already cheaper, if cost of the vehicle, insurance, fuel, and maintenance is considered. Drivers shouldn't be subsidizing them further.
Property taxes should pay for schools, fire, parks, and police.
I don't know why property taxes should pay for any of those, as opposed to say, an income tax.
Because it's wrong to tax what people work to earn. Without property, real estate, there is little need for fire protection or parks, and it reduces the need for police.
Again, people who don't own property in a city but commute there for jobs/shopping/nightlife act as freeloaders, profiting off the largess of condo dwellers.
First, I live in the city. Downtown Minneapolis is 10 to 15 minutes bike ride for me, in case you get the idea I want to "freeload". Secondly even those who do not own property, anywhere, still pays property tax. The owner of said property includes taxes when setting rent. That applies to businesses as well. That employer the employee drives into the city to work for, they pay property tax too, so are not able to pay employees as much. The only entities that do not pay taxes are governments.
Falcon
the more your drive the more you should pay. Now this presents a problem with more fuel efficient vehicles.
Depends a bit on your perspective. To some extent less fuel-efficient vehicles tend to put more wear on the road (eg a pickup-truck vs a sub-compact).
To an extent more fuel efficient vehicles do put less wear and tear of roads, but it's not necessarily true in all cases. A 35 mpg in the city truck could put more stress on the road than a sedan that gets 30 mpg. That is if there were some trucks that got that, I'd love to have one, but I expect there will be some in the future.
Between those two factors, a higher gas-tax kills 2 birds with one stone:
1. Tax for wear on highways that automatically factors in vehicle size
2. Subsidy for fuel-efficient vehicles (and penalty for gas-guzzlers)
I heard one proposal, and have made it myself on slashdot afterwards, about taxing miles driven. The first tyme a vehicle is registered it's odometer is read. Then when it's renewed the odometer is read again and the owner is assessed a fee based on mileage driven. Now a lot of people won't like to have to pay one big bill when they renew their tags, so what could be done is the owner could pay for the mileage driven monthly. Much like the self employed and others who do not have an employer deduct taxes from pay will send the IRS an estimate of the taxes owed.
Falcon
Why do you insist on posting your own fantasies as if they had anything to do with the truth?
Have you told Penn State College of Agricultures Diary and Animal Science you know more than they do yet?
The UMass link you provide says nothing about greenhouses gases. The closest it comes to the word "gas" is "gasketing". And though the other link does us "gas" and "carbon dioxide" it says nothing about whether greenhouse gases, which is not used.
You have provided no links to evidence to support your position but I have, including the Penn State link above which you obviously did not read or you're just acting like a troll. Just in case you're not trolling here are some more links:
Now unless you provide links to support your position I can only conclude you are trolling. And the 2 links you did provide did not do so.
Falcon
We're simply telling you that growers DO NOT add CO2 to their greenhouses in order to raise the temperature. They do it because plants like it.
And in cooler climates increases temps in greenhouses.
Falcon
I'm sorry, but you have not sourced your statement at all. You claim that growers add CO2 to greenhourses in order to raise the temperature.
They do not. They add CO2 since it makes the plants grow better.
They do, and I did provide a source, but I guess your selective reading field distorted reality around you because you missed what was said in the Penn State link I provided. Mainly this: "Greenhouse gases are so-called because they act to warm the earth in the same way that a greenhouse warms plants." Also try this, "What Causes the Greenhouse Effect?". Notice where it says:
"Although greenhouse gases make up only about 1 percent of the Earth's atmosphere, they regulate our climate by trapping heat and holding it in a kind of warm-air blanket that surrounds the planet."
"This phenomenon is what scientists call the "greenhouse effect." Without it, scientists estimate that the average temperature on Earth would be colder by approximately 30 degrees Celsius (54 degrees Fahrenheit), far too cold to sustain our current ecosystem.'
Simply greenhouse gases trap heat inside greenhouses raising temperatures.
And while carbon dioxide helps some plants grow faster such as poison ivy [pdf warning] it also slows the growth of other plants.
Falcon
YOU made the erroneous connection between the proposal that higher CO2 in modern times is increasing global temperature
Can you show me one tyme I said higher CO2 levels in modern tymes is increasing global temperatures? This is the first tyme I even recall using "modern" in this thread. What I do recall is saying that greenhouse gases are called that because they increase temperatures in greenhouses.
Falcon
HTML is case insensitive, so you can use lower case tags if you wish
I know but I've tried to read too many html documents where all the tags are capitalized. As strange as it may seem looking at all the caps give me a headache.
XHTML 1 has exactly the same semantics as HTML 4.01, so XHTML and HTML are equally strict and separate content from structure to exactly the same extent.
I've seen many more html pages with inline styles than I have with xhtml, as a ratio between style sheets and inline styles for xhtml and html.
Falcon
I think the only major difference in the code is the self closing tags.
I have no problem with self closing tags. I started with html4, then when I started xhtml at first some things seemed strange such as self closing tags but I picked them up quickly. Now it makes sense to close all tags.
Just like xhtml, most attributes that have to do with styling in tags have been deprecated.
Currently I don't know CSS well, then again I haven't created webpages much in a few years, but it seems logical to separate content from style.
Falcon