$640.00 to fill the tanks...

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 14:09:50 -0600, Newps wrote:

Or to say that the war on poverty is/was unsuccessful.

I'm with newps. All the "wars on x" are slogans. Arguing about them
is futile.

All I'm really sure of about the 40-odd years since I got the vote is
that we achieved unisex bathrooms without the ERA.

Don

In article om,
"Andrew Sarangan" wrote:

True, not everyone has thought this through, that's why I said "ones
who actively choose not to immunize". But the ones who made a conscious
and educated choice should not be criminalized as negligent.

ah - a subtlety that was lost on me at 1am... serves me right for reading
and posting at that hour.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

In article ,
Don Tuite wrote:

All I'm really sure of about the 40-odd years since I got the vote is
that we achieved unisex bathrooms without the ERA.

some achievement :-/

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

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

ktbr wrote:

Jose wrote:

Social engineering is never fair because it (by definition) treats some
people (or the activities they engage in) unequally (which isn't
'fair').



If it does so in a successful effort to mitigate a different source of
"unfairness", then the overall situation is "more fair". I agree with
you in principle, but I don't think that applying it as an absolute is
warranted.


The war on poverty has been going on for 40 years in the country.
Today there are roughly the same percentage of people living below
the 'poverty' line as there were back then. Has it been a successful
effort?

And for a lot longer than that in other parts of the world. I think
this sums it up pretty well - "For ye have the poor always with you...",
Matthew 26:11

Matt (not the same one!)

Bob Moore wrote:

Michelle Settle wrote

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I notice that there's virtually ZERO
self-employed people below the poverty line.


Have you talked to any flight instructors lately?

Good response and on-topic also. Give that man a cigar.

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

john smith wrote:
In article .com,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

Childhood immunizations. There are no children turned away without
immunization anywhere in America. There *are*, however, millions of
criminally stupid parents who don't GET their children immunized.

Wasn't the recent measles outbreak carried into the United States/Iowa
by an unvaccinated child who became infected in England?

Mumps, actually.

I'm convinced I had a mild case back this spring - and I was vaccinated
as a child. Remember, immunizations don't 100% protect you.

Grumman-581 wrote:
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 16:15:43 GMT, john smith wrote:
Educated populations tend to stop or slow down procreating.
an article in the Wall Street Journal stated that some countries with
low birth rates which already have a childbirth incentive are
contemplating increasing it.

To follow this logic to its full conclusion, we end up with the world
being overpopulated by the idiots... Just like when I see a woman with
4 kids in the grocery store... "FOUR kids? Couldn't figure out what
causes it or are you just CATHOLIC?"

What's wrong with having four kids as long as you can pay for all of
them? (And keep them away from me)