-CEO of a large company
-Politician

But they they would either have to charge a semi a lot, or not collect anything from the Civic, in order for it to actually be based on how much road damage the vehicle causes. According to this GAO study: http://archive.gao.gov/f0302/1... a semi causes 9,600 times the road damage of a car. The article says the tax is 1.5 cents per mile. That means if the Civic is getting charged 1.5 cents per mile, then a semi should be charged $144 per mile. Or, if the semi were charged 1.5 cents per mile, then the Civic would be charged .00015625 cents per mile, and thus would have to be driven 3,200 miles in order to get to half a cent which could then be rounded up and charged a full cent.

In reality, this "fee" is just a workaround for people whining about raising the gas tax. Just raise the fucking gas tax. If it makes you feel better, call it the "fuel usage fe.e" Either way it's largely a subsidy for truck transportation.

So does this device simply have a flag "these miles were in Oregon" and "these miles were outside Oregon" or does it actually store more specific location data? If this is really the only reason (and not just an "opportunity") then there is no reason to store any data more specific than that, yet I am willing to bet that it does.

Although TFA also says this:

So if you want to, you don't have to be tracked but then you'll be charged for any miles driven outside Oregon.

But what if the "you" is the person making your food, or stocking the store that you're buying products from, or an engineer designing those products? That's just as likely as any given semi carrying the specific product you're going to buy. Also, cars cause several orders of magnitude less damage than a semi.

Ok, since you have such a great understanding of economics, please explain to me how it's a good thing that the Walton family has more wealth than 40% of Americans (that's 129 Million Americans) combined, yet pays their full-time workers so little that they can't afford food or a place to live without welfare and foodstamps? How does it help me that my tax dollars have to subsidize Walmart employees (we're not talking about lazy drug addicts, we're talking about hardworking fulltime employees) when the company makes such huge profits? How does it help the economy when those employees can't afford to buy products that other companies manufacture and sell?

Or does it just benefit the 6 Waltons that are on Forbe's list of billionaires?

If your business requires paying wages that are so low that your workers can't make a living and to survive are still welfare and foodstamps (that my tax dollars pay for) despite working full time then your business plan is broken.

Or in many cases, the worker does increase the company's revenue by by more than $15 for each hour he/she works but they pay them less and pocket the difference (e.g. Walmart and other big box stores) and by paying lower wages and making other taxpayers make up the difference the owners of the company just get richer. That's why the Walton family has more wealth than 40% of Americans combined (that's 129 MILLION Americans). We're talking about a company whose executives take separate private jets to the same meeting just for fun to see who can get there faster. A company whose chairman (Sam Walton's oldest son) is only in the office a few times a month, and spends the rest of his time taking his private jet from his home in the Colorado mountains to go cycling in France, or hunting geese in Canada, or bio-safaris in South America, yet pays his workers so little that even though they work full time they can't afford rent and food. Are you still going to tell me that company can't afford to pay its workers a wage they can live off of?

Aha, I interpreted his "thing" to refer to the IDE, you interpreted it as the code he's working on. Since we're talking about what IDE people choose, I interpreted the questions to mean, "I like these features in an IDE. Does this IDE do what I want it to do?"

Well, if AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint make money off of me having this chip in my phone, then they'll pass that on to me in the form of lower monthly fees*, right?

*$0.52 Bitcoin mining credit does not include $4.83 mining & micropayments surcharge.

Oh, get off your high horse and stop being so arrogant. I don't think he said he needed it to understand the code. It matters to some people simply because they find it faster to use, not necessarily because they aren't capable without it. I, personally, think code completion is annoying, but I fully recognize that for some people it's great. If somebody likes it, then they should look at IDE's that have it. If somebody doesn't like it, then it's not a factor - they can use a tool without it, and I think pretty much any tool with it has an option to disable it.

Some honest questions here, as I am genuinely curious, as I'd guess you've already thought of these things and have reasons why they wouldn't work:
1. Is it possible to detect when ADA-compliance is required (e.g. detect when software is in use? Is it a different browser, or browser plugin that could be detected?) and present them with an accessible-specific site, kinda like how it's common to present users with a mobile-specific site? I have no idea about the technical aspects of it, but I think the compliance aspects of it would be analogous to providing both an escalator, and an elevator for accessible-specific use. You'd just have to make sure the accessible site stayed up to date with changes made to the standard site. Or maybe if not detectable, the first p tag on the page could be something like "Click here for accessible site"?

2. Is it possible to provide an accessibility specific phone number that they can call and have a human read the website out-loud to them? It seems like that might be cheaper/easier than redesigning a whole site in some cases. This would be analogous to gas stations with a sign that tells you to honk your horn and an attendant will come pump your gas for you, rather than having to design pumps that are accessible.

While that's probably true for the current number of actual disabled people, I suspect that if you provided transportation and a servant for every disabled person, you'd multiply the number of "disabled" people by at least an order of magnitude.

The average cost is irrelevant, because these trolls can select what businesses the extort. It's not going to do them any good to extort a business that could make the changes for a thousand bucks. They're going to look for businesses whose would be as high as possible. The first example in TFA says the changes would cost $20,000, and the trolls are trying to extort $5,500.

So you might say, "the ADA is there for a reason, why should these businesses get away with not complying?" Except that these extortions are in direct contradiction to that. They're not forcing businesses to comply with ADA, they're allowing business to give them a bribe in order to avoid complying! Now, if they weren't collecting "settlements" then all the PR they're spouting might actually make sense - whether you agree or disagree that they should force ADA compliance is another issue altogether, but that's simply not what they're doing.

Common, nobody expects you to read TFA but at least read the 2nd paragraph of the summary. The Facebook post was only one part of it. And like the previous commenter pointed it had nothing to do with the fact that it was a Facebook post, it was because it was under duress, it would have been the same thing in the olden days if it were a letter to the editor or statement to the media.

And anyway, you probably only read the title, because if you had read the summary at all you would have seen that the Facebook post was only one part of it. The lawsuit was for wrongful arrest, and he should have got more than $20k. APD will just look at that as a cost of doing business. At least the officer "quit," but the lieutenant should have been fired too instead of a whopping 5 day suspension. There is documentation that he willfully tried to cover up the incident when he should have been throwing the book at the officer. I would suspect that the officer was given only 1 day suspension under the agreement that he would quit, but when it comes to violating people's constitutional rights so egregiously that shit shouldn't be done behind closed doors. He should have been fired and make it very public why to deter other officers from doing the same bullshit and give confidence to the public that such behavior from officers is not tolerated. Instead it sends the message "whatever, go ahead and violate people's right and arrest them just because you find them annoying, all you'll get is a 1 day suspension and your boss will help cover it up."

Except that the word "Arab" does not refer to the UAE. The proper term is "Emirati," the word "Arab" means something else. The point the OP was making is that many people in the US are ignorant and seem to lump everything "Arab" together as if there were only one "Arab" country (or that there is no difference between Arab countries), and I think your ignorance helped prove his point.

WHAT THE FUCK? So pretty much they do something illegal, and only have to give part of the proceeds back?
Found the question mark:
1. Commit fraud
2. Get caught
3. Bribe^H^H^H Lobby politicians
4. PROFIT!