That is silly. The original point of SSNs was so that employers could use them to identify workers when paying social security taxes to the government. So, obviously, your employer needs to know it.

We need to get away from the ridiculous idea that something can be both widely known and secret. SSNs should only be used for identification, and should never be used for authentication. We should have a separate system for that.

No it isn't fair, because the number of medallions is artificially limited, so "everybody" can't get one. If anyone could enter the market, and licenses were priced to cover the cost of administration, that would be fair. What we have now is just an anti-competitive extortion racket.

What?? It this "opposites" day? Both health care (Medicare) and pensions (Social Security) have not only not been "raided", but are being unsustainably financed by politicians too terrified to attempt any reform. I wish that spending was being "raided". We should be investing more in young families with children, and get spending on retirees under control.

New York City has a nice bus system. It also has one of the most extensive subway systems in the world. There is still plenty of demand for taxis. A taxi can get you almost anywhere in less than half the time.

Also the only first world nation with a brain drain, of more educated people leaving than arriving, mostly because of lack of opportunity in a corrupt and over regulated economy. In the ease of doing business rankings, Italy is below Mexico and Colombia, and only a few notches above Russia.

No, there is no public interest in inhibiting fair competition. This is about protecting vested private interests, not the public interest.

Hogwash. The supply would only be high if the demand was high. If there were too many taxis and not enough passengers, then some drivers would go home and take the day off. Free markets don't solve every problem, but they can solve this one.

The FTC does not, and should not, do summary rejections. Even evil corporations have a right to due process.

For every lobbying campaign, there is an equal and opposite lobbying campaign. So a lot of money is spent to accomplish nothing. Why should I donate to an organization that is then going to lobby the government to raise my taxes so I can pay again? Instead of lobbying or lawsuits, the NC worked with the Forest Service, and a state university, provided funding to pull together experts with complementary skills, and solved a real problem. I consider that a much better use of my money that donating to the Sierra Club, so they can lobby the government to shut down nukes, so we can burn more coal, or sue power companies for building windmills that might kill a few birds.

I just wanted to add, that I am a donor to the Nature Conservancy. They do a lot of good work, and I am happy to see that my money is helping to save these little critters. If you are looking for a worthy cause, you should check them out. Unlike some other environmental organizations (Sierra Club, Greenpeace, NRDC, etc.) they focus on pragmatic solutions rather than political lobbying, advertising, and public relations.

1. Bats are not rodents.
2. They don't breed prodigiously, often having on one offspring per year.

The big problem with the white fungus is that it keeps the bats awake, and makes it so they can't hibernate properly. So their body temperature stays high, which means they burn calories, which means they starve to death before springtime.
 

Yes, someone should. But I don't see why that someone should be an EU bureaucrat. Why should the EU be telling the British how to run Britain? If they want porn to be opt-in, that is their own business.

I am skeptical about these figures. Many people have an interest in covering up this problem. In China, there is also a lot of cover up in the other direction, from parents that had a daughter, and didn't report the birth, so they could later have a son as their "one child". Often times these girls are raised in the countryside by their grandparents, and kept out of school, so the government doesn't know about them.

We don't need to eradicate all mosquitoes. Just the anopheles mosquitoes that transmit malaria. There are plenty of other mosquito species that would be happy to fill their niche.

No, twice as many women report being victims. The men are shamed into silence.

Of course not. These chemicals have been extensively tested. There is no question that they cause some harm, but it is not clear how much harm, or if they cause more harm than alternative chemicals, or the economic costs of using no chemicals. Many factors should be considered, in a deliberative scientific process, rather than just caving in to some green pressure group out of political convenience.