Do not for a minute, forget that the second place team in the great war of Northern aggression between the north and south, were indeed those who you referred to.

And check out who the reddest of red states are. Yup, mark me troll or whatever, the people who used to look it up in th ebible to justify owning other people are in that neck of the woods. A slashdot mod matters not to that truth

I suspect since any wage paid to those at the bottom of the economic ladder removes money from the rightful owners of that thar money, that there is a fair segment of the US population that still thinks that people should own other people.

Well, with electronic toll-paying that could work, but it would still shift the burden from low MPG to high MPG cars.

The great thing about a gas tax is that it's a simple way to kill two birds with one stone: encouraging higher mileage and paying for infrastructure. The problem is that not everyone agrees that both birds are important. Two-birders think that high mileage vehicles should be discouraged because of externalized costs -- pollution mainly, but also space required in parking lots, greater risk to other road users etc. One-birders don't care about externalities but understand that the roads and bridges need to be repaired. Zero-birders are just idiots.

I'm a two-birder myself, so raising the gas tax is a no-brainer. I'd also issue everyone a flat rebate per driver, because in fact I'm a three-birder: I'm concerned about the effect of a regressive tax on the working poor who have no options but to drive to their jobs.

But I'm also a realist. There are a lot of one-birders out there and the roads need repair. It's also politically easier in one-birder territory to sell something as a fee rather than as a tax, even though from my perspective that's an irrelevant difference if you're raising the same revenue either way.

Standing by for the "No True Scotsman" arguments when we ask for the proof of how many jobs were created, or how much of that trickle made it to the bottom.

Trickle down is based on the idea that if you have ten dogs, and give the fattest one a hot dog, he'll share it with the other nine..

And it still doesn't change the fact that some employers are using the blatantly socialist tactic of having the government subsidize their employees.

Notice no one responds to that, merely spews out more neocon dogma.

Well, they're already opting to have damaged natural joints like hips and knees replaced. That's a case of upgrading from natural to artificial to gain function. As the performance of artificial limbs increase, it might become an increasingly commonplace treatment for older people, just like knee or hip replacement.

If we project that trend forward for twenty or thirty years I wouldn't be surprised at all to see artificial legs that outperform natural legs for the purposes of walking or even running. But I don't think people with normal abilities will be trading in their limbs just to be able walk a little longer, run a little faster, or carry more weight. That won't happen until the replacement is subjectively indistinguishable from the real thing; until you can feel the grass under your toes.

I'm comfortable predicting locomotion parity in the next fifty years, but I wouldn't care to speculate on when we'll see sensory parity.

Highly possible, there comrade.

Reality checks for the cognitively disconnected tend to produce your raping puppies comment.

But beyond that, we differ. I do not want my tax dollars to be used to provide a babysitter for someone working at Walmart or McDonalds (substitute business of your choice) - do you?

But at the same time, I do not want WalMart to be subsidized by the government either. Do you?

Over time, the costs of living have gone up, and at the present minimum wage, it just isn't enough to sustain a family, (remember families are the bedrock of society) So should they all remain single and childless?

We hear from some that these minimum wage jobs should not be considered real jobs, thought of like jobs for teenagers saving up for the prom. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

But given that the USA's largest employer is using the government subsidized process, I'm not certain that one stands the reality test. Our local one sports many adults.

Because not everyone is going to be an engineer, or scientist, or MBA. There are simply going to be people on the bottom rung of the ladder, and given that the largest employer in the country keeps them there, (where are they gonna go?) it seems like a pseudo conservative version of the liberal's "you can be anything you want to be, honey!" - while "Let it Go" plays in the background.

So what do you do? Embrace the concept of people living in shantytowns, almost like America 2? I keep coming back to America's largest employer, not because of any special dislike, but because of that immense size. Because I don't want the government paying for these people's living - I can't imagine anyone, conservative, pseudo-conservative or liberal thinking that is at all the right path to go down.

But reality is these places employ a lot of people, they don't pay them a living wage, and I am paying for it - you too.

All of my shock talk is just attempts to get people to think about things when they have been inculcated with party line so deeply that just like the Queen in Alice in Wonderland - “Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”

Somehow that doesn't jibe with "The Government that governs least, governs best".

I have no problem with going after people who steal trade secrets, anything more than I have a problem with going after people who steal nuclear secrets. The only thing is that the FBI has a long history of racist paranoia about Chinese scientists, from Quan Xuesen in the early 50s to Wen Ho Lee in the 90s.

Rhwew may well of a legitimate case against these guys and if they do I hope they nail the bastards. But I'm not jumping to any conclusions based on FBI say-so.

You're the one worried about passwords that can be broken in 25 years; that's a non-issue. The issue is security that works well enough for long enough and is workable for the users. Impressive sounding, inflated requirements means something else has to give: price, performance, or usability.