Debate : 13476


Off-Topic / Debate / 13476

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Pedro Silva

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes: (snipped) (...) Hi Chris, Maybe the reason you are experiencing such a fear is the fact that ID card is supposed to be "High Tech"... I have had a National ID card for ten years, and I only (...) (23 years ago, 5-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.loc.pt)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) See, that you think these reasonable is itself symptomatic. (...) Your ID card tracks emissions? :-) (lesse, mine would say Hot Air, some methane, some foam) (...) Right, we have those too with respect to SSN. Didn't work. ID cards are bad (...) (23 years ago, 5-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.loc.pt)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Pedro Silva

(...) Why so? I'd go even further and say the ID card is sometimes practical (there is a better word in portuguese, but I cannot recall the translation). (...) Man, you are wicked... :-P *Date* of emission... or something like "Issued in Porto, on (...) (23 years ago, 5-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.loc.pt)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Horst Lehner

Hello Larry, (...) So, you think it would be OK to ... ... send someone else to a college test instead of showing up personally? ... drive with someone else's driver's license? (...) So, at least one thing works better in Europe than the US ;-) (...) (23 years ago, 6-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.loc.pt)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) No, this is a kind of fraud. But the fact that something is illegal is not a justification for every possible sort of remedy that any law enforcement officer can dream up. So while showing up for someone else's test IS fraud, it does not, in (...) (23 years ago, 6-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.loc.pt)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Pedro Silva

(...) And what would it be done to prevent fraud, then? (...) So why not put a 5-year-old driving a Humvee, if his father can pay for the damage? As for the case of the old man, it is up to him and his family to provide alternatives - this way he (...) (23 years ago, 7-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.loc.pt)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Oh, I agree with you, totally! He SHOULD NOT be driving. So then... you concede that since the state nevertheless issued him a license, that licenses don't work to keep unsafe drivers off the road, right? That's what the example is (...) (23 years ago, 8-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.loc.pt)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Horst Lehner

Hello Larry, you must be really opposed to ANY type of regulation, if this is the type of argument you use: (...) No regulation ever solves any problem 100% completely. But don't you think there would be a lot MORE unsafe drivers on the road WITHOUT (...) (23 years ago, 8-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.loc.pt)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) In general, yes. (...) If that was the only change, yes. But I'm not advocating that one change alone, so no. (...) I can say yes to that question, because in general I am satisfied that regulations do not significantly lower risk, but rather, (...) (23 years ago, 8-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.loc.pt)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Tom Stangl

(...) Please state all the changes that WOULD make it safer. I don't think you're going to convince me that it would be safer without requiring licenses, even with the threat of lawsuits left and right. There are already too many people driving (...) (23 years ago, 8-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Maybe some other time, this is a bit of a sidetrack. (...) Great, let's work to remove regulation where we both agree... (...) and when that deregulation happens, and people get used to the idea that regulations DON'T keep them safer than the (...) (23 years ago, 8-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Pedro Silva

(...) (snipped) (...) If so many favor it, it can be right. The choice of the majority, right or wrong, is the one to follow. The basic principle of Democracy. (...) I dunno, I'll take your word for it. ;-) Pedro (23 years ago, 8-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) No. Might, or mob rule, does not make right. Rights must be paramount to the desires of the mob. I reject democracy when it is unfettered. The majority voting to deny even one single person rights, while democratic, is unjust. I prefer a (...) (23 years ago, 8-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Pedro Silva

(...) Huh... does that mean only a few can decide my rights, if I belong to the mob? I disagree with you all the way. If more people want it, it is to be done. (...) (sorry, did not understand... please provide synonym. TIA) (...) Ah, yes. See (...) (23 years ago, 8-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Horst Lehner

(...) But who, then, decides what those rights should be. You? Me? Thinking over it, I would prefer the second ;-) :wq Horst (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) There is no perfect scheme but I prefer some process (undefined? what our founding fathers did? something else?) to ratify some basic set of rights and then sticking to those rather than allowing 51% majorities to override them on whim. If (...) (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Horst Lehner

(...) Whatever we in Germany have set down as basic rights can only be changed with 2/3 (instead of 1/2) of the votes. Not a perfect solution, but there has to be a legal way to change things that don't work well, even with basic rights ... :wq (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Frank Filz

(...) Something that tends to get forgotten I think is that just because all _government_ regulation is removed that there will be no regulation. I'm sure many, if not most, of the licenses which exist today would exist in a Libertopia. The (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Pedro Silva

(...) Why? Isn't the beloved Constitution of the United States of America, plus ammendments, a compilation of general regulations? And isn't your freedom to criticize regulations DUE to regulations? :-) (...) Ok, what would you complement that (...) (23 years ago, 8-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Horst Lehner

(...) But that's not what I meant. I was talking about the risk that fundamental rights will be violated, like when someone gets killed. And I do believe that driver's licenses, while they certainly cannot eliminate the risk, still do a good job of (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Laws, not regulations, ameliorate fundamental rights violations. If someone gets killed and an automobile is involved, there are some possibilities The auto was used as a weapon - this is murder and the law against murder is the thing to (...) (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Ross Crawford

(...) But not in others? Surely the relative percentages of each would give an indication of whether the overall risk is lowered by licences or not? Have there been any studies about this? ROSCO (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Well I COULD assert in all cases but it's not very provable, is it? (...) I'm suspecting not, since I don't know of any jurisdiction (similar enough to make meaningful comparisions, Botswana (if they didn't require them) doesn't count) that (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Note that we're talking about drivers licenses here. I have seen LOTS of studies (and you could go dig them up if you wanted to, try starting at cato.org) about other sorts of licenses... all different kinds of licenses, showing inefficacy, (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Horst Lehner

Hello Larry, it seems you have discussed this earlier than I jumped in. From some earlier posting from you on air safety I assume that you advocate the free market for any type of product, even security. (...) So, if I get you right, you would want (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Frank Filz

(...) Yup. And some kind of licensing and proof of insurance will probably be part of that security. Incidentally, were I to be a road owner, one thing I would insist on is that drivers be insured in addition to vehicles. The vehicle isn't (usually) (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Subject to the usage agreements, of course. As Frank said, different companies would have different agreements. (...) Correct. Please note that if I were privatising things, roads would be far down the list, after many many many easier things (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Horst Lehner

(...) But doesn't it take some sensible level of safety (as opposed to absolute safety) to ensure the value of the "life" part of your rights definition? (...) Don't get me wrong: As long as X is NOT a basic human right, I am OK with X being only (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Paid for by whom? Government sets up systems but should not be providing goods. What is the value of a life, by the way? Don't answer infinite, that's the wrong answer and will give you silly results. The proper functions of goverment in a (...) (23 years ago, 13-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —James Brown

(...) Hmm, Larry, I think you fired that off without thinking about it, or you're being obtuse. My circumstances have a great deal to do with how hard I work, yes. That applies, in a relative degree, to virtually everyone on the planet (work (...) (23 years ago, 13-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Horst Lehner

(...) If security is a good, then the right to live has very little value as well. (...) It seems to be more in Europe than in the US. (...) That was too quick a victory for you to let it go ;-) First, I already have said that I see no way to (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Or more likely, they were blessed with beneficial circumstances. (...) And here's the only problem with laissez faire. OF COURSE it isn't fair that those who are cleverer have more than those who are not. What deep misunderstanding of the (...) (23 years ago, 14-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Scott Arthur

(...) It is even less fair (in a libertarian world) if a person who has more $$, can give their kids better access to healthcare and education. This makes it harder for poorer kids to succeed. We had a system like that in the UK before WW2. (...) (23 years ago, 14-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Pedro Silva

(...) No. The sense of the driver will. If he has lost sense, then he is likely to have lost the ability to drive as well. But two things can further complicate this: Not that many people reach that age, and I know someone who is 80 and keeps (...) (23 years ago, 8-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) You say "no", but you mean "yes". The state issued license in the example I gave did not prevent this driver from driving. Your assertion just proves my point, licenses do not prevent unsafe driving. (23 years ago, 8-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Pedro Silva

(...) You have correctly interpreted my "No", Lar. "No, it does not", that was what I should have written. Language issues... :-) But you missed my point. The State grants the license, but the use the driver makes of it is his responsability. His (...) (23 years ago, 8-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) So if it is ultimately the driver's responsibility, what good then is the license or the act of issuing it? (...) There is no difference in kind among these. Both are abrogations of responsibility. I believe you are caught in a contradiction, (...) (23 years ago, 8-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Pedro Silva

(...) First, it proves the driver knows how to drive; second, it issues HIM the responsability for his actions behind the wheel, and noone else. It acts more to third parties' safety/insurance than the driver himself. (...) Synonym, PLEASE! :-) And (...) (23 years ago, 8-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Christopher L. Weeks

I'm not really sure what this has to do with licensing, but it seemed fun... (...) Does the question mark mean that you are unsure if this is the American way of handling it? I'd have to say that it is not. Now, I wouldn't convict someone were I (...) (23 years ago, 14-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Horst Lehner

Hello Larry, (...) No, you're trying to construct the contradiction, by requiring that the result of a regulation must be perfect. Requiring a license does improve safety (though not perfectly). True, it just sets a minimum standard [1]. This is at (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) You haven't demonstrated that to my satisfaction. (...) Minimum standards tend to become maximum standards in a regulatory environment. (...) There are other, better, mechanisms for changing this behaviour than regulations. Regulations give a (...) (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —James Simpson

(...) In the case of United Airlines, rather than having to face the true weight of their possible negligence in terms of security failures leading up to the disasters, they have de facto been rewarded by govt. shielding that has given them a (...) (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I have flown since then. It was the same as before, yet vastly different, both at the same time in a spooky sort of way. Same terminals, same security guards at my end, but much more serious... and much less attitude from everyone involved. (...) (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Frank Filz

(...) Actually, they were flying up to 9-11. They just decided as soon as the grounding occurred and it became clear that it was going to be more than just the rest of the day or so, that it wasn't worth trying to continue when they would lose so (...) (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) OK, thanks for that correction. I stand corrected. (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Horst Lehner

(...) Well, I may not be able to ... (...) Not if the interest to conform to the minimum standard is complemented by additional interest to do even better. (...) I never intended to *replace* tort law by regulations. I always thought of them as (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Thank you. (...) There is no market incentive to do so, though, given the regulatory shield. (...) Intent notwithstanding, this nevertheless tends to be the outcome. (...) You're starting in the middle. The company would never be allowed (by (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Horst Lehner

Hello Chris, (...) Why should they? They will probably make sure that whoever drives on them will be held liable for what he does to the road. But why should the road company care for other drivers? (...) Unless companies are shielded from their (...) (23 years ago, 8-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.loc.pt)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) You don't have to say hello each time, especially when you're saying hello to someone else than the post author. :-) (I wrote this one) (...) If you had a choice are you going to use the road that cares or the one that doesn't? You forget the (...) (23 years ago, 8-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.loc.pt)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Pedro Silva

(...) (snipped) (...) And what if you *don't* have a choice? (again, removed loc.pt) Pedro (23 years ago, 8-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Horst Lehner

<No greeting on request of Larry ;-), and to not err in the name ;-)=)> (...) Well, my response to this idea may apply less to the US than to Europe: We don't have enough space to build a CHOICE of roads to every destination. So, what remains of my (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Ross Crawford

(...) Hey, A new noun for the Lugnet FAQ!!! ROSCO FUT .o-t.fun (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Frank Filz

(...) You may not have space for a choice of roads, but people can chose where to live and work (or should be free to - free marketting the road system won't help if other parts of the economy are not free markets). (...) Probably true, though not (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Dave Schuler

(...) That's fine in a macroscopic sense, but it could easily mean that two whole populations of consumers get hosed in pursuit of that will-o-wisp named The Free Market. In my region, for instance, AT&T holds a de facto monopoly on cable service, (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) De facto or de jure? My experience has been that it is almost always de jure. <snip true (I have them too) account of horrific service and product offering> (...) No. Sans barriers to entry there are no natural monopolies. You have a (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Frank Filz

(...) Or they can rent from a place which allows installation of satellite dishes. I see several in my apartment complex (and for some folks, they even seem to be easy to install, they're bolted to the folks 2nd floor deck railing). As Larry has (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) But this is, in fact, false, in just about every case, except for the last mile on each end. Roads form a mesh and while there may not be space to build two parallel roads which are exactly equivalent in distance, that is not necessary. It is (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Ross Crawford

(...) ...or corporations... (...) Thats vi please. VI will generally result in sh: VI: not found or something similar. As will EMACS (except if you use some inferior operating system, sold by some corporate monopoly 8?) Oh, OK, you could create a (...) (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) With government assistance. Free market corporations can erect no such barriers. Not effective ones, anyway. QED (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Ross Crawford

(...) anyway. I agree Larry. It was just a quip to go with the dig about M$ further down. Though M$ has had (at least temporarily) an effective monopoly on PC operating systems, it *was* only temporary, and was most likely aided along the way (at (...) (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Horst Lehner

(...) Can you elaborate a bit on government assistance for, say, Microsoft, then? I really don't see them. Or would you say Microsoft has no monopoly on PC operating systems? They start to fear Linux these days, but only due to *regulations*, not (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) MS is not a monopoly. It has competitors, and effective ones at that. MS is dominant in certain market segments but since there are few or no barriers to entry other than MS competence at making good product, the net result of MS dominance (...) (23 years ago, 13-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —James Brown

(...) Hmm. I'd agree with your ratios, but I'd nudge them around until there was room to add "25% over-estimating the efficiency (and under-estimating the cost) of e-business" A lot of the crash was due to assumptions about what costs were involved (...) (23 years ago, 13-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Ross Crawford

(...) there (...) I'd re-word that "...competence at making a reasonable product and marketing it well," (...) Again, I'd say reasonable, not necessarily superior. Depends what features you're comparing, what you need to do. And they're (...) (23 years ago, 13-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Horst Lehner

(...) Pardon me? Operating Systems didn't cost a cent before Microsoft entered the game ... (...) So, Windows is a better OS than others in the marketplace, Word is better than all other word processing apps, Excel is better than Lotus 1-2-3, (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Did you want me to dig up a price sheet for OS/370 circa 1976? It wasn't free. It cost more than you or I make. UNIX System V wasn't free. BSD was never free (California taxpayers and DARPA paid for it) Or did you mean PC operating systems? (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Dave Low

(...) What about the integration between OS and applications? Different market segments right? So why should one corporation be able to leverage its products in one segment as a direct consequence of its dominance in another segment? Cf Nestlé. No (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Why not? This assertion has been made in this and other antitrust trials but has not been justified. I see nothing wrong with it. It benefits everyone to get more efficient products. There are no barriers to entry, so dominance is due to (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Dave Low

(...) I would contend that it _is_ a barrier to entry. No other application producer has the same access to the OS. The efficiency accrues from interactions between the OS and application packages, as much as from any inherent superiority in the (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Nothing is stopping anyone else from writing a better OS. Novell tried. IBM tried. Novell tried buying one from AT&T... (...) Nothing is stopping any hardware vendor from not installing it and going with a different OS, or any end consumer (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Dave Low

(...) Okay, another couple of points. 1. It's not about the OS, whatever the merits of DOS/Windows//NT. It's about producing the OS _and_ the application software (whatever the merits of the Office suite). By developing both the platform and the (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Matthew Gerber

(...) <text circumcision...snippy, snippy!> (...) Hit... (URL) run! Matt (23 years ago, 25-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Fortunately, that's satire. We have to protect the rights of all religious adherents, even those as confused about cosmology and stuff as Mac users... UNFortunately, as of Monday, Know your Customer, Carnivore email spying and Sneak and peek (...) (23 years ago, 25-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Larry Pieniazek

Whoops. Let me apologise in advance, the FUT was set to fun and I missed that. Sorry peeps. My bad. FUT re-set back to .debate (...) (23 years ago, 25-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Matthew Gerber

(...) <Bubba Joe-Bob> Cosmology? What's girly make-up got's ta' do wit' anahthin'? You sayin' I'm *GAY* 'er sumptin', boy? Well, are ya'? </Bubba Joe-Bob> Matt (Who once again ISN'T drawn into the Macintosh vs. Windows debate, being comfortably (...) (23 years ago, 25-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) You forget. I was *AT* NASA (posted about how I got to see the moonrocks up close and the ACRV and stuff). Some of those guys are fighting to keep ANY computer. NASA is run on a shoestring. It's amazing how much they manage to achieve with so (...) (23 years ago, 25-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Ross Crawford

(...) Like this: (URL) (23 years ago, 25-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Yes, yes, yes, it does. But I'm still sort of missing how that's a bad thing. By developing both the engine and the transmission that 90% of users want, already preengineered to work together, GM, Ford, Daimler, Toyota, et al gain a massive (...) (23 years ago, 25-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Horseless carriages (was: Gotta love Oracle...) —Ross Crawford

(...) ...and are sub-human enough to actually *want* to do *anything* with a Falcon...8?) And how many more twists is this thread gonna take???!!!??? ROSCO (fanning the flames of the Ford-Holden fire[1] after watching the Bathurst race the other (...) (23 years ago, 25-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Horseless carriages (was: Gotta love Oracle...) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I drove one, I didn't think they were THAT bad, but I never go to drive a Holden. Generally, GM sucks compared to Ford (we're Honda/Chrysler at our place) but I'm willing to concede Holden may have gotten it right. *Somebody* likes doing stuff (...) (23 years ago, 25-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Horseless carriages (was: Gotta love Oracle...) —Ross Crawford

(...) The Holden/Ford war has nothing to do with how bad either is. It's more like a religious war 8?) (...) Mmmmmm. Double rear axle... And roo bars don't only work for roos... (...) At least we didn't have a fad of two-tone station wagons... (...) (...) (23 years ago, 25-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Dave Low

(...) Or I'm missing why it's not a bad thing... ;^) (...) Huge snip, while I actually print out Larry's post and think about it (scary stuff). In the meantime, where did you pick up Holden "Commie"? Did someone from Australia actually say that or (...) (23 years ago, 25-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Indeed. Need to dig into the "why" of that, because just about everything you've posted as a disadvantage I see as an advantage! (...) I heard "commo" and "commie" a lot while I was there. Even the Holden guy at the torch relay ceremony Holden (...) (23 years ago, 25-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Dave Low

(...) and typically Strine too (eg brekkie=breakfast, kindie=kindergarten). I'd never heard it before: as far as I knew "commo" and "commie" exclusively referred to communist. Ross mentioned the Holden vs Ford clan rivalry -- maybe that satisfies (...) (23 years ago, 25-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Ross Crawford

(...) Including things like this: (URL) (23 years ago, 26-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Christopher Tracey

(...) this is a major problem at the university that I attend. Last year when I was a teaching assistant for a large intro class, we had the following protocol for preventing cheating in this form: 1. students may only enter from the back/top (...) (23 years ago, 14-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Cheating (was: Gotta love Oracle...) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) The way to combat this is to not check for cheating at all during the courses of study. When it comes time to graduate, put the student through a three-day comprehensive essay exam (during which you do verify identification) and if their (...) (23 years ago, 14-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Well, the more they can do with it, the worse that will be done. But I'm opposed to any required identification including our Social Security Number. (...) Why should a test proctor be required to see your parents' names or your marital (...) (23 years ago, 6-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.loc.pt)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Pedro Silva

(...) That is something beyond my will to fight against. Here we have a whole bunch of cards, numbers, ID's, licenses (Hunters need some seven or so different papers)... None of them is *too* invasive to our privacy - I have not heard of anyone (...) (23 years ago, 6-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.loc.pt)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Actually, me too. It is possible in the US to divorce oneself from their SSN, and I have not done that. They make sure it's a gigantic hassle. (...) I could come up with a number of reasons that a person might not want their parentage or (...) (23 years ago, 6-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.loc.pt)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Pedro Silva

(...) Ok, please point some reasons to me. I may even write a memo to the ID bureau here (no kidding!) if they are irrefutable. (...) a) I can demonstrate my identity through a couple of friends WITH ID if I don't have mine. b) You keep *dental (...) (23 years ago, 6-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.loc.pt)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) off (...) You might not want your parentage known under any circumstance where parentage matters. If you are a mix of ethnicities, one or more of which are discriminated against, you might not want it obvious. If your parent is (in)famous, you (...) (23 years ago, 6-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.loc.pt)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Pedro Silva

(...) Maybe... but then again, it is highly unlikely that any portuguese hasn't had ancestors of different races/ethnicites, thus noone can pick on me for that. Besides, names here are all alike, for all ethnicites. (...) Ah, fame... I can count (...) (23 years ago, 7-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.loc.pt)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) about (...) their (...) parentage (...) Even if people come from other nations? And racism is unheard of in Portugul? That rocks! So basically, instead of being concerned about those who might wish to keep their parentage private, what you are (...) (23 years ago, 14-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.loc.pt)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Pedro Silva

(...) The issue of "immigration" is rather new to our society, only in the last 20 or so years there has been a significant immigration (mainly Africa, and now former USSR). Our country is more of the "emmigration" kind, at least historically - for (...) (23 years ago, 14-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.loc.pt)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Horst Lehner

Hello Chris, (...) And you really feel more private then? They will even be able to know which types of products you buy. Theoretically. (...) Maybe it's different in the US, but here not everyone HAS a driver's license. I don't see much difference (...) (23 years ago, 8-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.loc.pt)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I don't know. They never seem to consult me when making these decisions. Please do not assume that because I live here, I support many actions of the government. I am fairly disenfranchised, if you haven't noticed. (...) Oh? What does it (...) (23 years ago, 14-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.loc.pt)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Pedro Silva

(...) (snipped) (...) More freedom than whom? And we *also* love our own respective countries, we may even love *each other's* countries so much that we want to unite 'em all! :-) Anyway, we also have cons. And we have ID's. Is it so difficult to (...) (23 years ago, 14-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.loc.pt)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Horst Lehner

(...) So, being asked for a proof of identity violates one of your rights? Which one? I would be opposed to any other than a very brief use of my ID information, but giving it out to briefly check whether I am on a list of wanted people seems OK (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Right to privacy. Right against unreasonable search and seizure.... Absent of being suspected of a specific crime there is no constitutional requirement to say who in particular you are if you are in a public place. Certainly private property (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Dave Schuler

(...) Is it, therefore, unconstitutional that the government require ID checks prior to allowing admission into CDC labs, for instance? These are government property, ie: public property, are they not? Dave! (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) To answer this question you first have to answer two related and subordinate questions: Is the function that this facility carries out itself constitutional? If not, then requiring ID or not is a moot question since the facility SHOULD be (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)