Unfortunately, the report you cite is inaccurate. It neglects the ad-valorum taxes on motor fuels being allocated as user fees. This was decided by referendum as recently as prop 42. The scumbags in our Democratic controlled legislature refuse to allocate those (sales) taxes to highway construction and maintenance.

In fact, if sales taxes collected on motor fuel purchases were properly allocated the result would be a $25+ billion subsidy to the general fund (nationally) .

FYI, your whining about someone using BHO's name makes you look like a liberal douche whose love for the One is beyond bounds and no one will listen to you either.

Your argument is circular. First you say "Crime doesn't increase with density". Then you give reasons why crime is based on economoc issues. Then you say "What does create crime is desperate people. When you spread out the poor, for whatever reason, the desperation decreases, as does the crime rate". The latter is in direct conflict with your first statement.

I happen to agree with everything you said, except your first point.

Density drives crime. Man, while a social animal, does not prefer to live too close to ones neighbors. My experience tells me that high density is like reducing the income of that family by a significant percentage.

Thus, one can live at fairly high densities in > $1M townhouses and see little crime, while a lot of crime occurs when you are living in the slums in apartments of similar densities. While the difference might be hard to measure because of the low absolute rates of crime, take the > $1M townhouse dwellers and put them in detached homes in a suburb. Crime rate falls even further. This can be proved to some degree by looking at the 10 safest cities in the US. All follow the low density pattern.

An interesting experiment would be to take some low-mid income families and put them in detached housing in a place they could afford. I bet the crime rates would drop there, also.

Bottom line, density is bad. Most people would prefer to live in less dense communities.

Unfortunately the utopian socialists can't stand anything that does not agree with their value systems and make stuff up to have thier prefered lifestyle look good. I say, stay in your hell holes and leave the rest of us alone.

Looks like a hell hole to me. You might want to live stacked on top of and beside your neighbors - I do not.

People like you (uptopian socialists) think living in boxes cheek by jowl is fun and that everyone should love it too. I'm glad you are happy there and hopefully you will never want to leave your fine abode.

We have a name for places like your pictures show - "The Projects"

This is about goals. It appears to me that the advocates of GPLv3 were willing to reduce the proliferation of software using this license to achieve some new level of "purity". Sadly, they were either unaware or uncaring about the concerns of some people who might want to improve that software and this is now resulting in developers abandoning formerly useful software like Samba.

From my perspective as a developer, GPLv3 practically eliminates my desire and ability to use software under this license. It is too bad, because this encourages the creation of closed software where the user does not get any rights.

Nice going, FSF, you are succeeding in your efforts at "purity", while slowing killing the implementation of the very ideas you espouse.

That's why I like the cop's maxim "I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six". That applies to me as well and if the cops come into my home or property, they are as likely to get shot as any other "perp". TH GP's GF included.

Cops that kill someone should be, in all cases, tried for capital murder. If they are innocent, they have nothing to worry about, right?

When I serve on a jury, I presume that everyone, including the cop and the prosecutor, as well as the defendant are lying. Starting from that point, I determine who might be lying less and make a judgment about what really happened accordingly.

I believe that most, but not all cops start out wanting to do the right thing, but become, in most cases, as bad as the criminals they attempt to control. It is unclear to me how to fix this problem, but I know never to trust a cop. They are not there to help you, except as that aligns with their desire to help themselves stay alive.

Cops are paid to do a job, just like most of the rest of us. I don't see any need to claim they are doing something noble. Their salary and pension more than make up for any risk they assume. Cops should remember, but often don't, that they are supposed to serve *all* of the people and put themselves second, always.

Too bad that your ideas are limited to catch phrases like "big corporations == bad" and not something actually meaningful. Your buddies on the left fringe are all about controlling the spin on thier stories, much more than the TEA Party folks ever could. Remember, the left is the primary supporter of political correctness and not telling the truth.