Not to mention it will probably have a police override allowing them to remotely either stop it
No need for any special remote control. One of the laws the driverless car will obey is the rule that requires you to pull over and stop when emergency vehicles approach with lights and siren. Emergency vehicles like, say, police cars.
Whoever at the FBI said this really didn't think it through.
Unless you count gas-taxes re-appripiated for mass-transit as a 'profit'.
Most of the Interstate is supported by fuel taxes. Fuel taxes are paid for by drivers. Who use the Interstate. So, I'd say that it's a pretty good case of 'user pays'.
Your argument would work if the fuel taxes funded the construction and maintenance of the interstates. They don't. If we wanted them to, we could get there without raising the fuel taxes paid by passenger vehicles, in fact those might possibly be reduced (though the reductions should probably be replaced with carbon taxes, used to fund carbon sequestration). Taxes on the fuel (or whatever) paid by trucks, however, should increase several fold, since they cause the vast majority of the highway construction and maintenance costs.
I really wish we'd fix up our highway funding so that it is usage supported, ending the massive subsidy we give the trucking system. Doing that would cause most of our bulk freight to move from the highways to rail, which is more energy-efficient and would make passenger highway travel safer. Unfortunately, it would also cost a lot of jobs in the trucking industry which wouldn't be offset by jobs in the more manpower-efficient rail industry, and that makes it politically impossible.
There was no point in saying it unless you thought I felt otherwise.
You mean unless I thought Kjella thought otherwise, since that's who I said it to.
And my response would be that libertarians' response is in turn that people would willingly contribute to a fund to improve the air we breathe.
Some would say that, sure. I wouldn't, and neither would many others.
Yep, as opposed to the morons that use password keepers and safes where all you have to observe is One password and then you have everything.
One password which is never sent anywhere from their device, plus you also have to get their device.
I don't think that word "moron" means what you think it means.
#1, as the Roman Catholic Church proved royally, is a complete and utter error forever. You do NOT want your organization's management deciding if a victim can call the police.
#2, every illegal act that is a felony, should result in the loss of a job. Once again, it's law enforcement and the courts that should make that decision, not the good ole boy network in your management.
#3. The standard should be to call the police, each and every time. It is the only way to end rape.
Apparently, if it isn't in the policy manual, women don't know how to call the police. But that's not surprising, because ever since birth control, the free love/rape culture has said that anything sexual is the woman's problem alone.
And the Republicans will blame Clinton for everything
I don't see how, given how much more the Gingrich House got done than the Boehner House has.
Because blowjobs!
I think you'd have a very hard time finding anyone who self-identifies as libertarian who would agree that "money should be forcibly collected from everyone in order to cover the externalities".
Yeah, you assumed you knew what I meant, but there's an opposing possibility which is just as valid which is what I actually meant. What I meant is that there's plenty of Libertarians who don't think that any way should be found to account for externalities.
Which view is perfectly consistent with the bit of my post that you quoted. A belief that no effort to address externalities and a belief that we should find a way to internalize them are both consistent with the statement that money should not be forcibly collected from everyone to cover externalities.
I didn't dispute your claim that some libertarians think no effort should be made to address externalities. I did say that "most libertarians would be just fine with using government to find a way to internalize the externalities", which may or may not be true, though I obviously think it is, or I wouldn't have said it.
So, all I have to do is observe a small selection of your passwords and I know most of them, and even have strong clues as to the structure to facilitate what little guessing I need to do for your "hard" passwords.
Brilliant!
What libertarians don't like is the idea that money should be forcibly collected from everyone in order to cover the externalities...
There's too many different people self-identifying as libertarians to make a declarative statement about that
Nonsense. The statement you quoted is one that basically all libertarians would agree with. You can perhaps quibble with my other statement that "most libertarians would be just fine with using government to find a way to internalize the externalities", but I think you'd have a very hard time finding anyone who self-identifies as libertarian who would agree that "money should be forcibly collected from everyone in order to cover the externalities".
The weird thing is, most cutting of energy use is done through better technology. The laptops I replaced our desktop machines have half to a third the wattage on the power supplies, and work just as well. My investment in LED light bulbs is just the start- I want to install a low voltage USB-compatible power grid in my house, to run all sorts of things at fractions of an amp, or at least under 2.5 amps (my new cell phone and tablets use higher amperage chargers). I've replaced my refrigerator with a newer model that uses half the electricity and added five more cubic feet. And yes, I drive a prius.
Funny thing is, I'm not particularily an environmentalist. Less dirty energy costs less money.
In most cases, you would end up paying for the Ex-Wife's apartment and one for you without the hopes of having a mistress because you are broke.
If you need money to get companionship, you may want to invest that same money into buying a personality.
These days, the common model is that the employee is paid a miserable wage, but would make up the rest in tips.
Not in France. You can tip in France, but it's rare and servers don't expect it to make up a significant portion of their wage.
In libertarian world negative externalities are paid by those who are stuck with them, even if they're an unwilling third party to someone else's actions because nobody has any responsibility for the common good.
That's certainly one brand of libertarian, but libertarianism is a pretty broad swath of ideas. I'd say that most libertarians would be just fine with using government to find a way to internalize the externalities, to make whoever causes them to pay them. What libertarians don't like is the idea that money should be forcibly collected from everyone in order to cover the externalities... which, incidentally, still allows those who directly benefit from them to avoid paying their way.
To fall, you have to be high at some point. Slashdot has always been a pandering to the freesource zealotry.
There's nothing low about "freesource zealotry", particularly among those who actually contribute their time and skills to free software. Quite the opposite, in fact.
If the aborigine drafted an IQ test, all of Western civilization would presumably flunk it. -- Stanley Garn
