If you're carrying it with your regular cell phone, "they" already know who you are. Unless they think it's your siamese twin.
They'll require ID to activate and thus be worthless on eBay--or anywhere else, once something like this goes into effect.
In only a generation or two we could be right back to fuedalism !
No, it's a self-balancing stable system. The more tax breaks and subsidies you give yourself, the smaller your vote. Do remember that the poor will naturally outnumber the rich to a great degree, and that the reverse is impossible. Giving a bit more power to the productive (less stupid) people would lead to political debate being a bit more intellectual.
Our current system is unstable. Welfare slowly increases over time because the poor are able to vote for it. They destroy their own jobs (their global competitiveness) via all sorts of goodies that raise the cost of employing them.
Why, then, do these religious nutcases claim that it is a criminal act to claim the aformentioned?
the NEED TO KNOW, in primitive man (ie, most of us) is stronger than the will to FIND OUT the truth.
its a very rare person that can see a traffic jam up ahead, has been in them enough times AND can choose to not sit for hours in one, when one has a chance.
I've examined all the possible angles of god vs non-god and the non-god answers always seem more rational and less like 'magic'.
speaking of magic, why do religious people believe in sky wizards but usually don't believe in magic? same basic concepts here, why the diff?
hardly. learning to fly an airplane is trivial compared to becoming leader of a nation. going through any process as straightforward as that only requires enough brains to learn the material and pass the tests.
leading a nation takes much more than the ability to jump through a few hoops to pass a test.
as another poster pointed out, Kamikaze tactics among pilots was commonplace in WWII. Kamikaze countries, however, are not, have never been, and never will be.
P.S.: because he doesn't know you exist.
Ominous voice: " . . . yet."
Nor does he you. What's your point?
It's an argument that he shouldn't have the job he has now, much less be promoted into a job with access to even more sensitive information about us.
Because he had a good personal reason to abuse his access and did so thinking he would never have been caught makes him the perfect man for the job? I disagree--he demonstrated a willingness to misuse a public trust for personal gain that I doubt the passage of time has magically cured so much as made him better at covering his tracks.
I suspect folks with that kind of access who misuse it at least on occasion are far more common than those who don't. What surprises me here, actually, is that there were any checks that resulted in him having been caught in the first place.
Never say you know a man until you have divided an inheritance with him.