If you covered around two percent of the uninhabited portions of the Sahara with currently available photovoltaic cells, you could supply 100% of the world's energy needs.
And jobs for millions of Africans to walk around wiping sand off of them! It's a win-win situation!
Of course, the whole world would have to shut down every 12 hours, but that's a minor quibble.
After reviewing your post, we felt it necessary to point out that being a snide bastard looks really stupid when people don't understand WTF you're going on about.
Always means you are about to be insulting. No I'm not a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. But thank you for the demeaning comment.
*shrug* if you choose to be insulted even after I made it plain that no offense was intended, that's your choice, and your problem.
I believe we do have an impact, but also that long before man climate changed as well.
I'm sure you also believe that the sky is blue and the grass is green - I'm not sure what any of that has to do with global warming. The fact that you accept that human beings can and do have an impact on the climate tells me that you're not actually an AGW denier - you're just confused about what that phrase means. That's a good start, anyway:)
My attempt was to show that there is more to the story. Again, George Burns lived to 100, while my neighbor as a child who never smoked died of lung cancer.
What's the relevance? You know, some people fall out of an aircraft and survive, while some people fall off a chair and die. I guess this means that we have "no hard data" and there's "more to the story", so we can't assume that there's any kind of connection between falling and dying.
That there's no hard evidence proving the link allows for conjecture from the other side in attempt to alleviate the assumption that there is a link after all.
The other side will always "conjecture" - hard evidence has dick all to do with it. For any given position you can always find some idiot who will take the opposing view, regardless of what the evidence shows.
No lab tests ever proved the theory
Nonsense. All the "lab tests" and all the statistical studies show that the effect is real - the problem is that you reject the evidence on the grounds that it's "not hard evidence". The creationists pull the same shit, the AGW deniers pull the same shit, and the 9-11 nuts do it too; any time you don't want to accept a conclusion which is heavily supported by metric-fuck-tons of data and scientific analysis, you can always just claim there's no "hard evidence". I'm sure it makes you feel better about your position, but to anyone who isn't completely gormless you end up sounding like a simpleton.
I generally don't respond to people who like to discredit others with assumptions of ludicrous behavior
It's not an assumption - it's a fact. Your arguments are - to use your own term - "ludicrous". The fact that I inquired about a particular type of lunacy that you don't believe in is irrelevant - the rest of the stuff you're saying is equally silly.
There isn't a single piece of hard evidence that the two are linked
There isn't a single piece of hard evidence that the big bang happened, or that evolutionary adaptations lead to speciation. If you think that "hard evidence" is the only way to reach a firm conclusion then you don't understand how science works. You'd be better off hanging out with the creationists, homeopaths, anti-vaxers and global-warming deniers rather than reading slashdot.
I don't mean to be too insulting, but are you one of those 9-11 conspiracy theorists, too? They're always whining about "hard evidence".
Given that there's no actual regulation, you can do whatever the hell you want. Next time someone you know goes on a vacation, tell them you'll stay at home if they pay you to offset their carbon emissions:) Given the current setup, the whole thing is completely meaningless, and plenty of companies have been raking in money without actually doing anything.
I mean, if not by law, why would anyone take part in this scam, unless they were on the money making side?
Guilt? Good public relations? There are plenty of reasons. Penn and Teller did a decent episode on it - they exposed some of the "carbon credit" companies for the scams that they are, and they also sent out a woman to randomly approach people doing their shopping, "assess" their purchases for carbon emissions (by randomly throwing out numbers) and then ask them to pay for the environmental damage. Most people seemed glad to fork over the cash.
AHH! There it is. I was wondering which axe you were looking to grind... I find homeopathy as entirely similar to most of modern medicine
Actually, I didn't bring an axe, I just picked one up at random. But thank you for displaying your ignorance in such a spectacular fashion. You can hand in your geek card on the way out.
This is why nerd boycotts never work. It's like a Mormon boycotting Budweiser, or a hippie threatening to boycott the Ivory soap company. Not exactly great tactics. The only companies that would take you seriously are the ones you'll never have an excuse to boycott.
Why not support bringing lawsuits against people who run domains like "CheapNikeKnockoffsRightHere.com" and then sell forgeries for a tenth the cost of the real thing rather than supporting yanking their domains without due process?
Because any judgments stemming from such lawsuits would be unlikely to even pay their legal bills, let alone recoup the financial losses. They're in a no win situation - sue and loose money, or don't sue and lose money. Just yanking domains is a much simpler alternative.
I'm not saying I agree with them, but I do sympathize. I'd like to think I wouldn't compromise my own principles if put in that situation, but with millions of dollars on the line things tend to get a bit tense.
Well, yeah, but the problem is they rarely stay in one piece long enough to hit the water, let alone damage the sub. 20,000 components falling on you is more of an annoyance than a bombardment.
It's not just northern Canada - even better settled parts of Canada still can't get mobile internet. If this thing is reasonably priced, I'd gladly buy it just so I can have net access on the road. Not only could I use it all over Canada, but I'd be able to take it anywhere in the world, so I wouldn't have to worry about roaming charges or availability of service when I go visit Europe, or deploy to some third-world shithole. You can bet that it would be equally valuable to any businesses which do resource-exploration in remote areas, or paleontologists and geologists working in the field, or any number of people in similar occupations/hobbies. Why pay for a satellite phone if you can carry one of these devices and have internet access, plus make calls using VOIP?
Uh, no. Unless all 78 satelites are serving the same customers at the same time, there's going to be a lot more than 12Gbps for the whole system. Still expensive, but quite a bit less than what you quoted.
In other news, Canadian forces is expecting to introduce their new kinetic planetary bombardment weapon in 2021.
We've been doing that for years - they're called paratroopers. Unfortunately they've recently acquired better parachutes, so their effectiveness has been greatly decreased.
Ah so if we do not apply software computers do not remove virii, and therefore if we do not apply medicine people do not heal?
Eh? No, the antivirus is part of the computer. It heals itself! Start paying attention!
The latter part hasn't been my experience
You've obviously never performed CPR on anyone.
Looking back at your leg example. Without any doctor at all, is it impossible that the leg will see further use? Of course not.
You are, of course, correct. Assuming that you don't die of the ensuing infection - as most people have, historically - I'm sure your mangled and disfigured leg could be very useful in soliciting donations from passers-by, or for earning an income as a carnival freak. Likewise, your virus-infested computer could work just fine as a paper-weight or a door-stop.
In short it's genuinely just a bad analogy to compare a man-made object to an evolved organism...
Yes, but given that I was addressing the claim that "people all heal themselves", I really didn't feel the need to try very hard. First you need to make a comment that's worth taking seriously.
How so? The former statement illustrates an observable, known feature of humanity. We heal. The latter statement is utterly false. Computers do not heal. Please do explain.
I'm sorry - I assumed that someone who comments on slashdot would be familiar with how computers work.
You see, we have this thing called "anti-virus software" which is a bunch of bits that function as part of your computer, and work to fight off viruses. It's role within the host is quite similar to the function of white blood cells in the human body, though the mechanism is quite different. Check out www.avira.com and www.clamav.net for more info.
Of course, even ignoring the existence of anti-virus software, a human typing "format c:" and then reinstalling windows on a computer is still just assisting - the computer is doing the actual "healing". Much like a doctor who opens up your leg, sews together nerve fibers and blood vessels, implants screws into the shattered bone, and then stitches you back up, is "just assisting" your body's "natural healing abilities".
Of the people that heal, they all heal themselves.
What a stupid thing to say. It would be just as accurate (and just as stupid) to state that, of the computers which recover from a virus, they all disinfect themselves.
Or that giving the patient a placebo *and letting them know that* is better than nothing, and better than most IBS medicine.
Eh, I figured that out years ago. It used to be that whenever I got a cold, I'd go out and waste buttloads of money on all sorts of pills and liquids to try and get it to go away. Always thought they did a marvelous job. Then I became a skeptic and learned about the placebo effect, and figured out that they really weren't doing anything other than convincing me to feel better. So now I just have a cup of tea, and tell myself "this will make you feel better". Seems to work just as good as any of the other junk.
In that situation, you probably would be paying 100 times more for your car, food and house. Because they're nicer.
Sure. And if the government gave me nicer roads, my own private fire and police department, a personal doctor and dentist, and private tutors for my kids, then the higher taxes might be justified. Since they don't, your analogy is worthless.
The guy who is earning 10000 a year might get a welfare check and foodstamps for his taxes, as well as some environmental and health protection.
And roads. And a postal system. And fire protection. And police protection. And education. And access to thousands of public facilities, like libraries, museums, pools, ice rinks, gymnasiums, etc. And subsidized housing. And free access to news media. And all the various other things which allow "poor people" today to live lives which the nobility of times past would have been envious of.
At 1000000 a year you'd be getting police protection of your stuff
Right. Which is why anyone with a decent sized house has a home alarm system which is probably linked to a private security force. Because we count on the police to protect our stuff.
military protection of your assets and investments
The military protects society as a whole, not "assets and investments". Yes, I know that the really crazy idealogues like to claim otherwise, but I'm just going to assume you're not one of them.
political power (that comes nearly free by virtue of just having the money)
It also has little to do with taxes. Political power is bought with campaign contributions and by being having influence in the community - no politician is going to give a damn how much taxes you pay.
subsidies for your investments or business
Heh. Maybe if you're a farmer.
Unless by "subsidies" you mean "the government takes less money than they normally would".
the kind of stability that allows your business to even function
The kind of stability that allows poor people to have 2 cars and a plasma TV?
The other guy is likely to be hassled by the cops as much as protected by them.
[citation needed]
He has no foreign investments that require a powerful military and diplomatic structure for protection.
Yeah, when did diplomacy ever help anyone?
A much smaller military would be sufficient to prevent invasion.
His $0 or less contribution wouldn't pay for a smaller military, either.
It's a bullshit argument, anyway. In a society where nearly everyone was dirt poor, your hypothetical $10,000-per-year guy would be far worse off than he is in our society. He'd probably be dying of malaria in a ditch, while his children spent 18 hours a day making shoes or working as prostitutes.
Also, the Canadian military really isn't that big. I don't think we could get it much smaller, really. Take away another 1,000 soldiers and we'd get our asses kicked by the Boy Scouts.
Most of all any benefits that keep him alive and not starving are keeping your workers alive and well and not rioting outside your door.
Hey here's an idea - stop taxing me to death and just let me pay the workers what their labor is worth! I won't give the guy who cleans toilets enough money to buy that second car, but I guarantee he'll get enough to live comfortably.
Like someone else around here said, taxes buy civilisation.
Suppose you have a net worth of $10M and I, on the other hand have nothing but $30k in credit card debt. If the state collapses, you stand to lose $10M and will probably have your throat slit by the people who take it from you. I, on the other hand, will lose $30k in debt and will probably have joined the roving band that is breaking down the door where the rest of your family have barricaded themselves.
So the moral of the story is... kill all the poor people?
Are you really telling me that I need to pay taxes so that the lazy bastards and the criminals won't get together and kill me? Well fuck that. I'm not a big fan of blackmail. Maybe we should just hire blackwater to do some cleanup. Or go back to the old laws, where pretty much everything was a capital offense.
It does point out how the rich benefit more from public order than the poor do.
Not really, no. You look at medieval England and then look at modern society. The rich did just fine back then, too - it was mainly everyone else that suffered. "The Rich" can always organize, and hire enough of "the poor" to oppress the remainder. If you think that "the poor" in modern nations have nothing (or very little) to lose, you obviously haven't traveled much.
All metals rust. Iron rust just has that distinctive red/orange colour.
Or are you being pedantic, and just going by the most common usage of the term "rust"? If so, I guess it would be more correct to say that "all metals corrode/oxidize", but the result is the same.
when you deny paying at least a reasonable amount of your fair share, you cheat us all. quite disgusting, really. yes, it should be punishable - at least in the court of public opinion.
I don't think anyone would disagree with that assessment. The real problem is with the definition of "fair share". If you make $10,000 per year and I make $1,000,000 per year, why should I pay 100 times as much when I only maybe use the road 2 or 3 times more often than you? Shuold I also be forced to pay 100 times as much for my food? Clothing? House and car? Can't have any unfairness now, can we?
Of course, the reality is even less balanced - not only would you not be paying any taxes for that road, but you'd be taking money OUT of the system in the form of welfare, medicare, education for your 15 children, food stamps, etc, etc. Which, of course, answers the question of why I have to pay 100 times as much - so that others can get a free ride. I think that situation is also "quite disgusting, really". If we're going to worry about "fair shares", let's have one standard here.
Slashdot Mirror
If you covered around two percent of the uninhabited portions of the Sahara with currently available photovoltaic cells, you could supply 100% of the world's energy needs.
And jobs for millions of Africans to walk around wiping sand off of them! It's a win-win situation!
Of course, the whole world would have to shut down every 12 hours, but that's a minor quibble.
After reviewing your post, we felt it necessary to point out that being a snide bastard looks really stupid when people don't understand WTF you're going on about.
Always means you are about to be insulting. No I'm not a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. But thank you for the demeaning comment.
*shrug* if you choose to be insulted even after I made it plain that no offense was intended, that's your choice, and your problem.
I believe we do have an impact, but also that long before man climate changed as well.
I'm sure you also believe that the sky is blue and the grass is green - I'm not sure what any of that has to do with global warming. The fact that you accept that human beings can and do have an impact on the climate tells me that you're not actually an AGW denier - you're just confused about what that phrase means. That's a good start, anyway :)
My attempt was to show that there is more to the story. Again, George Burns lived to 100, while my neighbor as a child who never smoked died of lung cancer.
What's the relevance? You know, some people fall out of an aircraft and survive, while some people fall off a chair and die. I guess this means that we have "no hard data" and there's "more to the story", so we can't assume that there's any kind of connection between falling and dying.
That there's no hard evidence proving the link allows for conjecture from the other side in attempt to alleviate the assumption that there is a link after all.
The other side will always "conjecture" - hard evidence has dick all to do with it. For any given position you can always find some idiot who will take the opposing view, regardless of what the evidence shows.
No lab tests ever proved the theory
Nonsense. All the "lab tests" and all the statistical studies show that the effect is real - the problem is that you reject the evidence on the grounds that it's "not hard evidence". The creationists pull the same shit, the AGW deniers pull the same shit, and the 9-11 nuts do it too; any time you don't want to accept a conclusion which is heavily supported by metric-fuck-tons of data and scientific analysis, you can always just claim there's no "hard evidence". I'm sure it makes you feel better about your position, but to anyone who isn't completely gormless you end up sounding like a simpleton.
I generally don't respond to people who like to discredit others with assumptions of ludicrous behavior
It's not an assumption - it's a fact. Your arguments are - to use your own term - "ludicrous". The fact that I inquired about a particular type of lunacy that you don't believe in is irrelevant - the rest of the stuff you're saying is equally silly.
There isn't a single piece of hard evidence that the two are linked
There isn't a single piece of hard evidence that the big bang happened, or that evolutionary adaptations lead to speciation. If you think that "hard evidence" is the only way to reach a firm conclusion then you don't understand how science works. You'd be better off hanging out with the creationists, homeopaths, anti-vaxers and global-warming deniers rather than reading slashdot.
I don't mean to be too insulting, but are you one of those 9-11 conspiracy theorists, too? They're always whining about "hard evidence".
Given that there's no actual regulation, you can do whatever the hell you want. Next time someone you know goes on a vacation, tell them you'll stay at home if they pay you to offset their carbon emissions :) Given the current setup, the whole thing is completely meaningless, and plenty of companies have been raking in money without actually doing anything.
I mean, if not by law, why would anyone take part in this scam, unless they were on the money making side?
Guilt? Good public relations? There are plenty of reasons. Penn and Teller did a decent episode on it - they exposed some of the "carbon credit" companies for the scams that they are, and they also sent out a woman to randomly approach people doing their shopping, "assess" their purchases for carbon emissions (by randomly throwing out numbers) and then ask them to pay for the environmental damage. Most people seemed glad to fork over the cash.
Eh, if you're a woman, there's always a second answer.
AHH! There it is. I was wondering which axe you were looking to grind... I find homeopathy as entirely similar to most of modern medicine
Actually, I didn't bring an axe, I just picked one up at random. But thank you for displaying your ignorance in such a spectacular fashion. You can hand in your geek card on the way out.
Your feigned disinterest is betrayed by your post count.
I didn't say I'm not interested - I said I can't take you seriously.
Bad point is bad.
Yes, it is.
Medicine is merely an aid to the underlying biological processes. Quality of life improvement, and little else.
And homeopathy is a miracle cure.
This is why nerd boycotts never work. It's like a Mormon boycotting Budweiser, or a hippie threatening to boycott the Ivory soap company. Not exactly great tactics. The only companies that would take you seriously are the ones you'll never have an excuse to boycott.
Why not support bringing lawsuits against people who run domains like "CheapNikeKnockoffsRightHere.com" and then sell forgeries for a tenth the cost of the real thing rather than supporting yanking their domains without due process?
Because any judgments stemming from such lawsuits would be unlikely to even pay their legal bills, let alone recoup the financial losses. They're in a no win situation - sue and loose money, or don't sue and lose money. Just yanking domains is a much simpler alternative.
I'm not saying I agree with them, but I do sympathize. I'd like to think I wouldn't compromise my own principles if put in that situation, but with millions of dollars on the line things tend to get a bit tense.
Well, yeah, but the problem is they rarely stay in one piece long enough to hit the water, let alone damage the sub. 20,000 components falling on you is more of an annoyance than a bombardment.
It's not just northern Canada - even better settled parts of Canada still can't get mobile internet. If this thing is reasonably priced, I'd gladly buy it just so I can have net access on the road. Not only could I use it all over Canada, but I'd be able to take it anywhere in the world, so I wouldn't have to worry about roaming charges or availability of service when I go visit Europe, or deploy to some third-world shithole. You can bet that it would be equally valuable to any businesses which do resource-exploration in remote areas, or paleontologists and geologists working in the field, or any number of people in similar occupations/hobbies. Why pay for a satellite phone if you can carry one of these devices and have internet access, plus make calls using VOIP?
Uh, no. Unless all 78 satelites are serving the same customers at the same time, there's going to be a lot more than 12Gbps for the whole system. Still expensive, but quite a bit less than what you quoted.
In other news, Canadian forces is expecting to introduce their new kinetic planetary bombardment weapon in 2021.
We've been doing that for years - they're called paratroopers. Unfortunately they've recently acquired better parachutes, so their effectiveness has been greatly decreased.
I think they're called "routers".
Ah so if we do not apply software computers do not remove virii, and therefore if we do not apply medicine people do not heal?
Eh? No, the antivirus is part of the computer. It heals itself! Start paying attention!
The latter part hasn't been my experience
You've obviously never performed CPR on anyone.
Looking back at your leg example. Without any doctor at all, is it impossible that the leg will see further use? Of course not.
You are, of course, correct. Assuming that you don't die of the ensuing infection - as most people have, historically - I'm sure your mangled and disfigured leg could be very useful in soliciting donations from passers-by, or for earning an income as a carnival freak. Likewise, your virus-infested computer could work just fine as a paper-weight or a door-stop.
In short it's genuinely just a bad analogy to compare a man-made object to an evolved organism...
Yes, but given that I was addressing the claim that "people all heal themselves", I really didn't feel the need to try very hard. First you need to make a comment that's worth taking seriously.
How so? The former statement illustrates an observable, known feature of humanity. We heal. The latter statement is utterly false. Computers do not heal. Please do explain.
I'm sorry - I assumed that someone who comments on slashdot would be familiar with how computers work.
You see, we have this thing called "anti-virus software" which is a bunch of bits that function as part of your computer, and work to fight off viruses. It's role within the host is quite similar to the function of white blood cells in the human body, though the mechanism is quite different. Check out www.avira.com and www.clamav.net for more info.
Of course, even ignoring the existence of anti-virus software, a human typing "format c:" and then reinstalling windows on a computer is still just assisting - the computer is doing the actual "healing". Much like a doctor who opens up your leg, sews together nerve fibers and blood vessels, implants screws into the shattered bone, and then stitches you back up, is "just assisting" your body's "natural healing abilities".
Of the people that heal, they all heal themselves.
What a stupid thing to say. It would be just as accurate (and just as stupid) to state that, of the computers which recover from a virus, they all disinfect themselves.
Or that giving the patient a placebo *and letting them know that* is better than nothing, and better than most IBS medicine.
Eh, I figured that out years ago. It used to be that whenever I got a cold, I'd go out and waste buttloads of money on all sorts of pills and liquids to try and get it to go away. Always thought they did a marvelous job. Then I became a skeptic and learned about the placebo effect, and figured out that they really weren't doing anything other than convincing me to feel better. So now I just have a cup of tea, and tell myself "this will make you feel better". Seems to work just as good as any of the other junk.
It's not really pedantry.
If you ask for the salt at dinner and I hand you a bottle of potassium cyanide I can say "ha, it's a salt, you should have specified".
Eh. I still think it's pedantic, but your analogy was clever and made me laugh, so I'll cease my objections :)
Also, not all metals rust - gold and platinum, while you can oxidise them, really don't do so to any appreciable degree at STP.
Yeah, I know. About 10 seconds after I hit "submit", I thought to myself .... "maybe I should have said 'most'" ....
In that situation, you probably would be paying 100 times more for your car, food and house. Because they're nicer.
Sure. And if the government gave me nicer roads, my own private fire and police department, a personal doctor and dentist, and private tutors for my kids, then the higher taxes might be justified. Since they don't, your analogy is worthless.
The guy who is earning 10000 a year might get a welfare check and foodstamps for his taxes, as well as some environmental and health protection.
And roads. And a postal system. And fire protection. And police protection. And education. And access to thousands of public facilities, like libraries, museums, pools, ice rinks, gymnasiums, etc. And subsidized housing. And free access to news media. And all the various other things which allow "poor people" today to live lives which the nobility of times past would have been envious of.
At 1000000 a year you'd be getting police protection of your stuff
Right. Which is why anyone with a decent sized house has a home alarm system which is probably linked to a private security force. Because we count on the police to protect our stuff.
military protection of your assets and investments
The military protects society as a whole, not "assets and investments". Yes, I know that the really crazy idealogues like to claim otherwise, but I'm just going to assume you're not one of them.
political power (that comes nearly free by virtue of just having the money)
It also has little to do with taxes. Political power is bought with campaign contributions and by being having influence in the community - no politician is going to give a damn how much taxes you pay.
subsidies for your investments or business
Heh. Maybe if you're a farmer.
Unless by "subsidies" you mean "the government takes less money than they normally would".
the kind of stability that allows your business to even function
The kind of stability that allows poor people to have 2 cars and a plasma TV?
The other guy is likely to be hassled by the cops as much as protected by them.
[citation needed]
He has no foreign investments that require a powerful military and diplomatic structure for protection.
Yeah, when did diplomacy ever help anyone?
A much smaller military would be sufficient to prevent invasion.
His $0 or less contribution wouldn't pay for a smaller military, either.
It's a bullshit argument, anyway. In a society where nearly everyone was dirt poor, your hypothetical $10,000-per-year guy would be far worse off than he is in our society. He'd probably be dying of malaria in a ditch, while his children spent 18 hours a day making shoes or working as prostitutes.
Also, the Canadian military really isn't that big. I don't think we could get it much smaller, really. Take away another 1,000 soldiers and we'd get our asses kicked by the Boy Scouts.
Most of all any benefits that keep him alive and not starving are keeping your workers alive and well and not rioting outside your door.
Hey here's an idea - stop taxing me to death and just let me pay the workers what their labor is worth! I won't give the guy who cleans toilets enough money to buy that second car, but I guarantee he'll get enough to live comfortably.
Like someone else around here said, taxes buy civilisation.
Two words: North Korea.
Suppose you have a net worth of $10M and I, on the other hand have nothing but $30k in credit card debt. If the state collapses, you stand to lose $10M and will probably have your throat slit by the people who take it from you. I, on the other hand, will lose $30k in debt and will probably have joined the roving band that is breaking down the door where the rest of your family have barricaded themselves.
So the moral of the story is ... kill all the poor people?
Are you really telling me that I need to pay taxes so that the lazy bastards and the criminals won't get together and kill me? Well fuck that. I'm not a big fan of blackmail. Maybe we should just hire blackwater to do some cleanup. Or go back to the old laws, where pretty much everything was a capital offense.
It does point out how the rich benefit more from public order than the poor do.
Not really, no. You look at medieval England and then look at modern society. The rich did just fine back then, too - it was mainly everyone else that suffered. "The Rich" can always organize, and hire enough of "the poor" to oppress the remainder. If you think that "the poor" in modern nations have nothing (or very little) to lose, you obviously haven't traveled much.
All metals rust. Iron rust just has that distinctive red/orange colour.
Or are you being pedantic, and just going by the most common usage of the term "rust"? If so, I guess it would be more correct to say that "all metals corrode/oxidize", but the result is the same.
when you deny paying at least a reasonable amount of your fair share, you cheat us all. quite disgusting, really. yes, it should be punishable - at least in the court of public opinion.
I don't think anyone would disagree with that assessment. The real problem is with the definition of "fair share". If you make $10,000 per year and I make $1,000,000 per year, why should I pay 100 times as much when I only maybe use the road 2 or 3 times more often than you? Shuold I also be forced to pay 100 times as much for my food? Clothing? House and car? Can't have any unfairness now, can we?
Of course, the reality is even less balanced - not only would you not be paying any taxes for that road, but you'd be taking money OUT of the system in the form of welfare, medicare, education for your 15 children, food stamps, etc, etc. Which, of course, answers the question of why I have to pay 100 times as much - so that others can get a free ride. I think that situation is also "quite disgusting, really". If we're going to worry about "fair shares", let's have one standard here.