"QIp vIghro' pum" translates to "stupid cat falls" without a 'investment' and braving more than a decade of dust.
Actually, it translates to "fall cat stupid". "Stupid cat falls" would be "pum vIghro' QIp". (Perhaps on the Moon, it should have been "pumlI' vIghro' QIp", but I digress...)
what's so great about planting flags? Scientifically it has no value.
It could refute the hypothesis that they grow when planted.
Also, heh: "QIp vIghro' pum" is Klingon.
(fetches Okrand from the shelf...)
Hah...I get it now. I knew it! Thirteen years ago, when I bought the damned book, I knew it would come handy one day! Thank you so much.
I wonder if the base price includes PowerVM or a graphics card.
I wish I knew. The last Unix box I had was an Indy. Probably not the first thing, though - the Specifications page lists all of "PowerVM {Express|Standard|Enterprise} Edition" as "(optional)". According to the fine documentation, you can order "POWER GXT145 PCI Express Graphics" for your machine. If you want to run AIX on the box, I have no idea what the AIX level support is for this hardware. Forget CAD systems, though, this doesn't look like that kind of graphics hardware.
What is a "base price" for these machines, anyway?
Even if you don't use the roads, you benefit from living in a community where other people use the roads. Everyone should pay for the roads.
I tend to doubt that my life is improved by people choosing, for instance, to drive enormous SUVs rather than smaller cars. Yet the cost of road maintenance due to damage caused by those large vehicles is comparatively very high.
Furthermore, while maybe we do all benefit from the roads regardless of whether we actually drive or not, people who do use the roads get a more substantial benefit from the roads than those who don't.
Frankly, the number of full electric cars is almost non-existent
Today, sure. But it's pretty clear that electric vehicles are a market that is going to grow substantially over the next decade. You have to build the infrastructure at some point; it's best to do it before it becomes a serious problem rather than after.
For an example of what happens when you do things in the wrong order, see the federal healthcare website.
I'd say infrastructure is needed no matter what, so justifying a distance tax based on road usage seems like it misses the entire crux of the issue.
Wear and tear on the roads is due largely to people driving on them. It makes sense to me that those who use them should pay for their upkeep.
The other reply already addressed the fact that the purposes of gas taxes are primarily to raise revenue. If your source of revenue dries up, then either you have to reduce spending (stop maintaining roads) or find another source.
Even the compiler can be compromised. Ken Thompson showed that.
And then, he's been proven wrong by a demonstration how Thompson's hack can be mitigated to an arbitrary degree of confidence.
To a large extent, your use of fuel is proportional to your damage to roads. Lots of weight, acceleration and braking, will all put more wear on the road and at the same time use more fuel.
Full electric or plug-in cars can use no gas, but they sure as heck don't have zero impact on the roads. You can start taxing electricity to raise money for transportation maintenance, but since electricity is used for so many other things that's hardly fair either.
It's a problem that has to be solved at some point as more and more fuel-efficient cars get on the road. You can propose other alternatives than the GPS tracking-type systems -- the most obvious being to just tax based on odometer readings, possibly with a factor related to vehicle weight -- but pretending that you can continue to just increase gas taxes and everything will work out isn't going to solve anything.
I dunno why France is complaining, the NSA only has a single french translator.
They have him on part-time loan, when he's not busy translating Quebec intercepts for Canadian Intelligence.
-
NASA's mission was to go to the moon, but along the way they they discovered scratch resistant lenses and memory foam. I have both in my house right now.
The point is a discovery is something new and beautiful, no matter what the reasons for looking were. I can easily imagine some offshoot of this technology fixing some other skin condition like shingles or eczema.
As for the "this helps people's suffering" vs "quit whining and just shave your head" argument, I started balding at 14. I'm happy with my shaved head now, but at the time it started it felt like motherfucking Armageddon. Suddenly girls were a terribly important concern and I looked like a radiation accident. I wouldn't wish that kind of social suffering on anyone. Especially an awkward 14 year old fer chrissakes. It was miserable.
That being said, I greatly enjoy my shaved head now and if this treatment were to become available I wouldn't take it. Being hairless (once you're the right age anyways) is actually rather nice. You look just fine in the morning, rain doesn't bother me because I have no hair to mess up, and driving with my windows down feels wonderful in the summer.
Living on Earth may be expensive, but it includes an annual free trip around the Sun.
