The only problem with that is when the mechanic needs to make his own alternator because the one he needs isn't invented yet...

I don't think Google has enough clout to do this, but what could theoretically be done is send out the press release, then watch and see which of the 50 suspects starts to make some moves.

Don't you watch movies?

On the other hand you just made one of the best -1 flamebait threads for all time. If I had mod points I would have read all this and modded it +1 funny.

Private from whom? We already have fraud laws for identity theft. We already have the free market to regulate the likes of Google or other companies. We have the 4th Amendment. What else did you have in mind?

It's only a misquote if you think I'm quoting from one source but am actually quoting from another.

I agree with you statement about Al Queada. The problem is that the US largely still refuses to ask the deeper questions of 'why'. So goes the question on global warming and so goes the question on terrorists motives. It's a solved subject to one politician or another, but in reality they both deserve much more thought.

I cheer for the people of Iran. May they reform their country though their own means without US meddling. If we do meddle it will likely turn out no better than North and South Korea.

So in a nutshell, you and I couldn't have this conversation (if you call it that) in a world without money because it would be incapable of producing all of the technology that makes it happen?

I took some liberties. Am I putting words in your mouth?

And so people will talk even more about oppression by state. No one said it would be fun.

And statists always forget that the easiest and fastest way to change a corporation is to stop giving it money, which is not possible with the government. It's for this reason that it takes tens of years to change the government, but corporations can be made, broke, and resurrected in better forms in tens of months. The government doesn't have any interest in being good because it's survival based less on being good and more on being unobservable.

I know it's in my sig but I'd like to hear your well thought out rebuttal to this. Then you might be taken seriously.

.... or so the theory goes.

"A small body of determined spirits fired by an unquenchable faith in their mission can alter the course of history." Mohandas Gandhi

Doesn't the person's individual abilities and condition of the road also determine other people's relative safety? I think there are people who can drive safely and talk on the cellphone at the same time.

So what would you propose? A certification process for walking and chewing gum?

I don't think we will like the implications if they say yes.

You deserve a +6 Scientist rating for that one.

Except the bar you raised has nothing to do with driving and talking on the phone, just with technical skills. They are not related. What you would want is people with better 'monkey-brain' reflexes, not specifically technical talent.