I don't think you understood the article. The point is that they are worried that fuel-efficient cars will become some prevalent that there will not be enough gas consumption to maintian the needed level of revenues from the gas tax. Raising the gas tax will just exacerbate this problem.
In the first place, what "energy problems" are you talking about? People would complain about the cost of gas no matter what it was, but I don't remember the last time I met someone who put off a trip to disneyworld because they couldn't afford gas for the SUV. We had 50 dollar a barrell oil last fall along with an gradual economic recovery. The notion that were in foreseeable danger of running out fuel is nothing but a lazy "scare tactic".
2)All in all, I favor the development of safe nuclear power over the long haul. But the notion that the anti-nuclear movement has been based on FUD ignores the history of nuclear power. If nuke plants were so safe all along, how is development of a meltdown-proof reactor news? Also, the safe and secure transport and disposal of waste is still a problem.
The simple, undeniable fact is that nuclear radiation has the potential to be more dangerous than other alternatives, by magnitudes. While people should not make decisions based on FUD, it would be irrational not to be extra cautious about it.
That's right. If the US were really serious about remaining an economic power, we'd get rid of this pesky democracy that's holding us back!
Also, if the US goes down the tubes those Chinese are really screwed. Not only are we their biggest market for both goods and capital, but they hold a lot of our paper!
The contradiction you point to is not quite the problem you're making it out to be.
The logic of competition drives you to eliminate your competition. You can't simultaneously foster competition and make victory impossible.
If you expect that the better product/company will result from competition, than you have to admit that it will likely drive the lesser to extinction.
"With the cutbacks and additions, the Pentagon would trim $30 billion over the next six years from its original $89 billion defense buildup, according to the budget document, which was first reported in InsideDefense.com. The total military budget is still likely to exceed the 2005 level. At the same time, the White House is preparing an emergency spending bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that could total between $80 billion and $100 billion, congressional defense aides say."
The way I read that article, high-tech programs are being cut to fund infantry needs. Overall defense budget continues to grow, but just not as fast as originally planned. And this does not include all the emergency funding being used to fund the Iraq war.
A good amount of my tax money is spent putting out other people's fires and catching criminals.
You don't really understand how the constitution works do you? It sets up a government that allows people to do the things that they cannot do as individuals. That's what's meant by "general welfare". How is social security any less constitutional than public sanitation, police and fire. As long as it was instituted by a legitimate act of gov't its totally constitutional.
Think of this way: Social Security is how the people of the United States have, constitutionally, protected themselves from being destitute in their old age.
Why stop there? If your house burns down, or your the victim of some crime, shouldn't you be likewise held accountable for the poor decisions on your part that led to it?
The fact is that we tried it your way and people didn't like it.
It's a fundamental assumption that underlies open communcation. The notion that a blogger has less responsibility to be honest, as some people seem to be arguing is absurd.
As others have said, the Armstrong and blog cases are (a little) different from payer standpoint (but I don't believe that everyone who donated to Dean hoped that their money would be put toward corrupting the free exchange of ideas on the internet.) But from the payee standpoint they're exactly the same.
then why do they owe me something (unless my contract says I will get a percentage of profits).
Unless the contract states one way or the other what the arrangement is, it does not default to "owned by the company". There is law that governs this sort of thing. Clearly the Japanese court interpreted such that the inventor was entitled to additional compensation. Even the company did not take the line that he had contractually waived any claims over the rights.
How do you get from "works" to "whatever makes me happy"? I'd be happier if I didn't have a toothache, but ignoring pain certainly won't work. When you try to extend that to truths like the Holocaust, you'll notice that it gets a little tricker, but that's the point. Historical truths are much more mutable than those of the physical universe. It may be frustrating, but it's true. (If it wasn't, how/why could history be so contested?)
"Correspondance to Reality" is one of those things that people believe in that they can't prove.;)
I still haven't seen anyone post a convincing argument why its unethical for me to share movies, music, literature? The fact that the author will not make money off my doing so is not persuasive.
I believe the onus should be on the person who wants the government to intervene against my own ability to dispose of my property in a way that not only does no harm, but benefits others.
Okay, I've tried it with you, and it's just not working.... Are you saying we should live in a world where people should be able to go wherever they want and be free from passports, and visas, and citizenship? Hey, great, I agree. But it's a feature of the modern world for EVERYONE. Not just foriegners in the US. I'd have the same problems if I tried to work in the EU or Japan (or Russia).
Also, you really should look into apartheid a little more deeply. I don't think the problem was that blacks were forced to wait on line or have their photo taken or be hassled with paperwork.
I don't buy the "civil disobedience" argument for a second, but I don't understand your principle that someone has to contribute to the funding of a something to enjoy it.
Obviously, people are free to figure out some legitimate way to profit from what they do or not, but it's not my responsibility to see that they do. If I notice that Sears is selling tires for less then they're worth, am I obligated to buy something else while I'm at the store to make sure Sears stays in business?
This point has been made over and over, and I'll say it again. Technology giveth and technology taketh away; the media companies are abusing the law to maintain their (outrageous) profits in the face of the fact that they no longer have a monopoly on the means of reprodcuction and distribution of content.
I agree that anybody who says the US is just as bad as China has no idea what they're talking about. That doesn't mean however that it's inevitable, or that there aren't plenty of people in the US trying to exercise the same level of control over knowledge in the US as authorities in China do.
Furthermore, the economic clout represented by China could in the next few generation exercise a downward influence on the level of civil liberties in the US.
A business model works buy figuring out a way to make your product profitably, not figuring out a way to force people to cooperate with the best way you can figure out to do something.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think you understood the article. The point is that they are worried that fuel-efficient cars will become some prevalent that there will not be enough gas consumption to maintian the needed level of revenues from the gas tax. Raising the gas tax will just exacerbate this problem.
I don't really see how the oil industries get revenue from this, except that it takes away some of the incentive to use a more efficient car.
The seemingly quaint idea of "fairness" still has some currency in this world, believe it or not.
It would be bizarre if humans being stopped reflecting on such things.
In the first place, what "energy problems" are you talking about? People would complain about the cost of gas no matter what it was, but I don't remember the last time I met someone who put off a trip to disneyworld because they couldn't afford gas for the SUV. We had 50 dollar a barrell oil last fall along with an gradual economic recovery. The notion that were in foreseeable danger of running out fuel is nothing but a lazy "scare tactic".
2)All in all, I favor the development of safe nuclear power over the long haul. But the notion that the anti-nuclear movement has been based on FUD ignores the history of nuclear power. If nuke plants were so safe all along, how is development of a meltdown-proof reactor news? Also, the safe and secure transport and disposal of waste is still a problem.
The simple, undeniable fact is that nuclear radiation has the potential to be more dangerous than other alternatives, by magnitudes. While people should not make decisions based on FUD, it would be irrational not to be extra cautious about it.
That's right. If the US were really serious about remaining an economic power, we'd get rid of this pesky democracy that's holding us back!
Also, if the US goes down the tubes those Chinese are really screwed. Not only are we their biggest market for both goods and capital, but they hold a lot of our paper!
The contradiction you point to is not quite the problem you're making it out to be.
The logic of competition drives you to eliminate your competition. You can't simultaneously foster competition and make victory impossible.
If you expect that the better product/company will result from competition, than you have to admit that it will likely drive the lesser to extinction.
"With the cutbacks and additions, the Pentagon would trim $30 billion over the next six years from its original $89 billion defense buildup, according to the budget document, which was first reported in InsideDefense.com. The total military budget is still likely to exceed the 2005 level. At the same time, the White House is preparing an emergency spending bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that could total between $80 billion and $100 billion, congressional defense aides say."
The way I read that article, high-tech programs are being cut to fund infantry needs. Overall defense budget continues to grow, but just not as fast as originally planned. And this does not include all the emergency funding being used to fund the Iraq war.
click here
So you're saying they have more disposable income because housing is so expensive?
I guess it depends on what kind of animal tissue they were contaminated by.
If avaiation accidents never happened you might have a point, but as it is it seems like "Shit Happens" still applies.
A good amount of my tax money is spent putting out other people's fires and catching criminals. You don't really understand how the constitution works do you? It sets up a government that allows people to do the things that they cannot do as individuals. That's what's meant by "general welfare". How is social security any less constitutional than public sanitation, police and fire. As long as it was instituted by a legitimate act of gov't its totally constitutional. Think of this way: Social Security is how the people of the United States have, constitutionally, protected themselves from being destitute in their old age.
Why stop there? If your house burns down, or your the victim of some crime, shouldn't you be likewise held accountable for the poor decisions on your part that led to it? The fact is that we tried it your way and people didn't like it.
It's a fundamental assumption that underlies open communcation. The notion that a blogger has less responsibility to be honest, as some people seem to be arguing is absurd. As others have said, the Armstrong and blog cases are (a little) different from payer standpoint (but I don't believe that everyone who donated to Dean hoped that their money would be put toward corrupting the free exchange of ideas on the internet.) But from the payee standpoint they're exactly the same.
The same thing that stops them from placing random people under surveillance. It's a waste of time and effort.
then why do they owe me something (unless my contract says I will get a percentage of profits). Unless the contract states one way or the other what the arrangement is, it does not default to "owned by the company". There is law that governs this sort of thing. Clearly the Japanese court interpreted such that the inventor was entitled to additional compensation. Even the company did not take the line that he had contractually waived any claims over the rights.
Doesn't China have enough to do locking up real threats like pro-democracy activists and falun gong practitioners?
How do you get from "works" to "whatever makes me happy"? I'd be happier if I didn't have a toothache, but ignoring pain certainly won't work. When you try to extend that to truths like the Holocaust, you'll notice that it gets a little tricker, but that's the point. Historical truths are much more mutable than those of the physical universe. It may be frustrating, but it's true. (If it wasn't, how/why could history be so contested?) "Correspondance to Reality" is one of those things that people believe in that they can't prove. ;)
I still haven't seen anyone post a convincing argument why its unethical for me to share movies, music, literature? The fact that the author will not make money off my doing so is not persuasive. I believe the onus should be on the person who wants the government to intervene against my own ability to dispose of my property in a way that not only does no harm, but benefits others.
Where are we "literally engaging in genocide", jackass?
Okay, I've tried it with you, and it's just not working.... Are you saying we should live in a world where people should be able to go wherever they want and be free from passports, and visas, and citizenship? Hey, great, I agree. But it's a feature of the modern world for EVERYONE. Not just foriegners in the US. I'd have the same problems if I tried to work in the EU or Japan (or Russia). Also, you really should look into apartheid a little more deeply. I don't think the problem was that blacks were forced to wait on line or have their photo taken or be hassled with paperwork.
Can't the same argument be made against anything we ban minors from purchasing? Shouldn't it be your responsibility to keep your kids from smoking?
I don't buy the "civil disobedience" argument for a second, but I don't understand your principle that someone has to contribute to the funding of a something to enjoy it. Obviously, people are free to figure out some legitimate way to profit from what they do or not, but it's not my responsibility to see that they do. If I notice that Sears is selling tires for less then they're worth, am I obligated to buy something else while I'm at the store to make sure Sears stays in business? This point has been made over and over, and I'll say it again. Technology giveth and technology taketh away; the media companies are abusing the law to maintain their (outrageous) profits in the face of the fact that they no longer have a monopoly on the means of reprodcuction and distribution of content.
I agree that anybody who says the US is just as bad as China has no idea what they're talking about. That doesn't mean however that it's inevitable, or that there aren't plenty of people in the US trying to exercise the same level of control over knowledge in the US as authorities in China do.
Furthermore, the economic clout represented by China could in the next few generation exercise a downward influence on the level of civil liberties in the US.
A business model works buy figuring out a way to make your product profitably, not figuring out a way to force people to cooperate with the best way you can figure out to do something.