$640.00 to fill the tanks...

I'm not sure which is worse: the real privacy issues or the paranoia about the privacy issues.

The real privacy issues are.

Take yourself back fifteen years and imagine people predicting that just
going on the web would be a privacy concern, and that visiting a doctor
would be a privacy issue... you'd probably be laughed at as a tin hat.
But even something as innocuous as small text files (cookies) have
become mighty powerful invasions. Viruses were all but unknown fifteen
years ago, and anybody who predicted that opening an Email could be
dangerous was roundly thumped. Now we have companies like SONY actively
putting trojan horses and rootkits in their own mass market items that
monitor your file transfers and decide whether or not you should be
permitted to accomplish them, and Amazon giving out "personalized
prices" (guess where that comes from) when you visit them. When
journalism is under the entertainment division, it's not too hard to
imagine articles being written in such a way that they read differently
depending on who accesses the web site, and what their browsing history is.

It's not paranoia. It's real.

That is not to say that there is a man behind the curtain pulling all
the levers. However, having the machine pull the levers by itself is an
even bigger problem.

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

On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 10:00:09 -0500, Emily wrote:

Other than the fact that we are going to overpopulate the planet
deplete our resources?
Well, I'll be dead before that happens.
ignorance does not solve any problems.
That doesn't change the fact that it's true.

Yes, it is true. But you don't care to do anything to help all the peoples
(plural intended) after you. You even haven't shown any sympathy ...

If I showed sympathy for everyone who actual deserved it, I wouldn't be
able to function.

sympathy might be the wrong word (and it sure was lost in translation;
sorry, I am working on it).

#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.

Martin Hotze wrote:
sympathy might be the wrong word (and it sure was lost in translation;
sorry, I am working on it).

Perhaps the word "empathy" instead of "sympathy" would be more accurate?

Jay Honeck wrote:



The price may well become unbearable, however. (Although prices here
on all grades of gas have dropped 5% in the last week or two.)
--

Oil and gas are on the way down.

On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 05:37:11 GMT, Matt Whiting
wrote:
I trust you'll start with the man in the mirror. :-)

Nawh, I'm enjoying the position of Arbiter of Truth in The Universe
too much... I have served proudly in this position since 2003...

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...a6ce136a1d82aa
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...777fadfa8984f0
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...768aaf9a5ef040

http://makeashorterlink.com/?H6361469D

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 23:03:56 -0500, Emily
wrote:
Well, I'll be dead before that happens.

Personally, I haven't exactly scheduled my death yet and was kind of
thinking on being around for the next few hundred years or so... Of
course, my body might have different plans...

The problem right now is that people have more kids
than they can afford...but that wouldn't be a problem
if the government would stop paying for them.

It's a twofold problem... On one hand, the government is giving them
positive motivation for spitting out numerous kids and no negative
motivation to act responsibly... On the other hand, the people who
tend to have these many kids are often those of lesser intelligence in
our society and it is unreasonable to think that of of these genes
we're going to end up wth kids of greater intelligence... Of course,
there are probably exceptions to this rule, but if one was to treat it
as a generalization, one would not be terribly in error...

Ok, I'll agree on that one. Unfortunately, as someone already pointed
out, bad things happen when we try to limit the number or type of
children that people have.

Yeah, next thing you know, we will have college educated people
working behind the cash registers at McDonalds... Hell, we might even
get someone who works there that doesn't ask you if you want fries
with your order when your order was already just an order of fries...
Damn, next thing ya' know, they'll be able to operate a register with
*works* on it instead of *pictures*...

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 17:50:52 GMT, ktbr wrote:
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?

The definition of 'poverty' is quite a bit depending upon the country
that you happen to be in... You might very well find that the
individuals who consider themselves living in poverty here in the US
still have a TV and VCR... This might be considered someone who is
well off in other countries... It's all subjective...

Yeah, next thing you know, we will have college educated people
working behind the cash registers at McDonalds.

That would be a good thing?

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

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 12:01:28 -0700, "Michelle Settle"
wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I notice that there's virtually ZERO
self-employed people below the poverty line.

So, if we have an individual who is panhandling on the street or
washing car windshields at street corners for quarters, do we still
consider them self-employed?

Of course, we're not talking about the professional bums who
supposedly actually manage to earn a decent living through their
panhandling type activities...

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 21:49:05 GMT, Matt Whiting
wrote:
Good response and on-topic also. Give that man a cigar.

Which is one of the reasons that I hate it when people put the POL
crap in front of the message subject when the thread changes a bit...
I believe that you should keep whatever the original thread started
out as... If we go with the changing the subject idea, we would need
to remove the POL from the subject for the previous reply... Why don't
we just stick with the original subject and leave it that way...