$640.00 to fill the tanks...

Jose wrote:

Capitalism is ruthlessly fair. It treats everyone the same, regardless
of race, creed, or political affiliation. It is the ultimate
democracy, and its basic rules are immutable.


No, it is not.

Capitalism is sort of mostly fair when it's practiced by equals. But
capitalism makes some powerful and some not. The next generation
inherets this, and at that point it becomes inherently unfair.

Small companies are far more influenced by individuals than large ones.
This allows large ones to get away with more. If they become large
enough to become monopolistic and get away with it, the key has been
thrown out.

Large companies can purchase more votes than small ones, or individuals,
and those votes keep them large and influential, despite any quality
issues with their products. WalMart, with its decrees about RFID tags,
may well be the biggest threat to privacy there is, but it is largely
unstoppable because there is little of equivalent size with sufficient
coherency to fight it.

Nobody forces anybody to shop at Wal-Mart. If people are worried about
their privacy, they can simply shop elsewhere. That will correct the
problem quickly.

Matt

Nobody forces anybody to shop at Wal-Mart. If people are worried about their privacy, they can simply shop elsewhere. That will correct the problem quickly.

That works, so long as there is an "elsewhere". As the larger companies
gobble up the smaller ones, the number of "elsewheres" diminishes, and
the power of the individual to affect WalMart by shopping elsewhere
diminishes. It is an unstable slope with a stable end point - Walmart
or nothing.

As for privacy, you missed the point entirely. The scenario is: Walmart
requires RFID tags. Companies respond by putting them in all their
products (because it's cheaper to put it in everywhere than it is to
selectively leave them out). So, even if you buy from the corner drug
store, you walk around with an RFID tag on everything.

It's not here yet, but it's very close.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
Nobody forces anybody to shop at Wal-Mart. If people are worried
about their privacy, they can simply shop elsewhere. That will
correct the problem quickly.


That works, so long as there is an "elsewhere". As the larger companies
gobble up the smaller ones, the number of "elsewheres" diminishes, and
the power of the individual to affect WalMart by shopping elsewhere
diminishes. It is an unstable slope with a stable end point - Walmart
or nothing.

That was said about IBM before DEC and Microsoft came along. And DEC
before Dell came along. And GM before Toyota came along. And Toyota
before Hyundai came along...


As for privacy, you missed the point entirely. The scenario is: Walmart
requires RFID tags. Companies respond by putting them in all their
products (because it's cheaper to put it in everywhere than it is to
selectively leave them out). So, even if you buy from the corner drug
store, you walk around with an RFID tag on everything.

No, I didn't miss the point at all. The point is you have choices and
can use the free market system to fight back. Will it cause you some
inconvenience? Most likely. The point is that capitalism provides a
solution to the privacy problem, it just isn't as easy as whinning about
the problem.


It's not here yet, but it's very close.

As someone who is working with RFID technology, it isn't as capable as
many in the media have made it out to be.


Matt

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 21:39:07 GMT, Matt Whiting
wrote:

As someone who is working with RFID technology, it isn't as capable as
many in the media have made it out to be.

True, vis-a-vis VHF/UHF, but the UHF tags may facilitate the universal
ID that folks on the right have been justifiably warning us about
since the inception of Social Security.

Don

Don Tuite wrote:
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 21:39:07 GMT, Matt Whiting
wrote:

As someone who is working with RFID technology, it isn't as capable as
many in the media have made it out to be.


True, vis-a-vis VHF/UHF, but the UHF tags may facilitate the universal
ID that folks on the right have been justifiably warning us about
since the inception of Social Security.

It is certainly possible. This is OT, but we just studied Revelation
again in church and when you look at implantable tags and think what is
possible already, it is chilling. As soon as they suggest implants in
the right hand or forehead... :-)

Matt

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 22:09:46 GMT, Matt Whiting
wrote:
It is certainly possible. This is OT, but we just studied Revelation
again in church and when you look at implantable tags and think what is
possible already, it is chilling. As soon as they suggest implants in
the right hand or forehead... :-)

Are you saying that implanting them in the left hand or the butt is
more acceptable to you?

Grumman-581 wrote:

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 22:09:46 GMT, Matt Whiting
wrote:

It is certainly possible. This is OT, but we just studied Revelation
again in church and when you look at implantable tags and think what is
possible already, it is chilling. As soon as they suggest implants in
the right hand or forehead... :-)


Are you saying that implanting them in the left hand or the butt is
more acceptable to you?

Neither is acceptable to me.

Matt

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 22:09:46 GMT, Matt Whiting wrote:

It is certainly possible. This is OT, but we just studied Revelation
again in church and when you look at implantable tags and think what is
possible already, it is chilling. As soon as they suggest implants in
the right hand or forehead... :-)

you think that this hasn't be done already?

- http://www.sierratimes.com/03/10/28/article_tn_blanton.htm
- http://www.google.com/search?q=rfid+children+find

#m
--
Did you ever realize how much text fits in eighty columns? If you now consider
that a signature usually consists of up to four lines, this gives you enough
space to spread a tremendous amount of information with your messages. So seize
this opportunity and don't waste your signature with bull**** nobody will read.

That was said about IBM before DEC and Microsoft came along. And DEC before Dell came along. And GM before Toyota came along. And Toyota before Hyundai came along...

Yes, it was. But IBM and Microsoft are in different businesses. DEC
and Dell are in different businesses. It is that that caused the
upheaval. But in any case, big companies can compete with big
companies, and sometimes little companies can find a niche (there was a
satellite pager company that did some business with truckers - became
MCI) and grow from there.

Nonetheless, as far as =consumers= are concerned, there is little influence.

No, I didn't miss the point at all. The point is you have choices and can use the free market system to fight back.

Yes, you missed the point completely. Regarding WalMart, RFID and
privacy, I can choose to never ever shop at Walmart, and the privacy
issues will be just as problematic. It is not =my= shopping at WalMart
that invades my privacy, it is the result of =other= people shopping
there that does.

As someone who is working with RFID technology, it isn't as capable as many in the media have made it out to be.

Yet.

When it is, it will be so entrenched people won't know what hit them.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:

Yes, you missed the point completely. Regarding WalMart, RFID and
privacy, I can choose to never ever shop at Walmart, and the privacy
issues will be just as problematic. It is not =my= shopping at WalMart
that invades my privacy, it is the result of =other= people shopping
there that does.

This makes no sense at all. How so?

Matt