Right now, it appears some of the revenue from traffic fines pays for the detectives investigating theft, arson, fraud, missing persons, murder, hunting with out a license, public urination, vandalism, and so on.
Which have nothing to do with cars. So why tax cars? Why not a general tax or a property tax or such?
Putting a $1,000 fee for transportation will really hurt a lot of poor people.
Parent is right, a $1000 transportation tax would be terrible for poor people. I have poor neighbors who can't even afford a junker that costs $1000, let alone an extra tax on top.
Now, they may quietly PRETEND they have the legal power to order this, and phrase their request as an order. But they really can't do much if Cisco ignores them.
That is like saying the mafia may quietly pretend to have the power to shut down your business if you don't do what they want. While the NSA may not have the authority, on paper, they certainly have the ability to press the issue by "extralegal" means and have verifiably done so in the past.
The odds of your gun being grabbed and used against you are high.
...when you live in an action movie...
On another note, a firearm is so easy to make that anyone with very basic machining tools can make an AK-47 in their garage. If over-the-counter guns start to become less user-friendly more people will start making their own guns or buying "homebrew" weapons from sketchy sources.
For example on a CentOS system you might allow your webserver to make outgoing SMTP connections via something fun like this: "iptables -A OUTPUT -m owner --cmd-owner httpd --dest-port 25 -j ACCEPT". (Why CentOS? Because it matches the command against HTTPD. On Debian systems the webserver process is more typically called 'apache2'.)
The cmd-owner match was removed in kernel 2.6.14 because it was broken with SMP.
IPTables doesn't have support for application-based firewalling. You can do that kind of thing using something lilke the Grsecurity patch for the kernel, but it is not for beginners.
Grsecurity will let you create policies exactly like what you're talking about and then some. For example, it will allow you to create a policy limiting which files and folders a given program can access. To be specific, on my machine I have a policy that Firefox can only write data to it's own folders and to my Downloads directory, and can't execute/run any files inside those folders. That way, if somebody hits me with a drive-by download or something it simply won't work.
Where ALSA fails in it's most basic configuration is it's ability to handle multiple simultaneous audio streams. One stream going directly to an ALSA device, locks that device for playback thereby preventing any other application from using it.
This is only true if you have a shite sound card which doesn't support multiple audio streams.
(plus, if your area of expertise or interest is something related to data mining, the NSA might count as honest work compared to, say, Facebook)
When did the NSA and Facebook become separate entities?
Sometimes, people you want to like do things that are wrong - even criminal. And there doesn't always have to be some big conspiracy behind it.
And sometimes people are afraid to outwardly admit agreeing with said acts.
It's not illegal to discriminate against people on the basis of their brain activity. Should it be? Can you judge someone on the basis of their biology? Is it really that person's fault anymore if a part of their body predelects them to wrongdoing? Where does liability start? Can you fix people? Should you?
Too many questions about really understanding the brain that our primitive moral system could begin to address.
Does it really matter whose "fault" something is? Discrimination based on assumptions, regardless of the basis, should certainly be illegal. However, discrimination based on objective, observable things shouldn't be. For example, it should be illegal to discriminate against potential employees based on ethnicity. It should not be illegal to discriminate against people with a measurably low IQ when the job can be shown to require a higher IQ. It doesn't, or shouldn't, matter that a person's intelligence quotient isn't exactly their fault.