The article you cite is 6 years old -- dated 1997. The economic cost/benefit analysis suggested by it may have been true based on the goals of Kyoto in 1997. I'll also suggest that it wasn't until 2001 when the US withdrew from Kyoto after the EU lead by France and Germany helped bend the USs ability to use natural CO2 sinks and engage in emissions trading.
Got a study of any of those 2500 economists' take on Kyoto AFTER the Hague conference in November 2000?
I'll agree that was the INTENTION of kyoto. Perhaps a better way of stated that would have been:
"The fact is Kyoto has been bent by France and Germany to allow Europe an economic edge over the United States and provide an opportunity to paint Americans as greedy monsters."
And the word "fact" here is wrong. I should have indicated that its what I believe based on France and Germany's posturing during the November 2000 at The Hague. Why would they posture to limit the US's ability to count carbon sinks and limit the US's ability to use emissions trading?
Did you read your source? I seriously question it. They base the conclusion on a study of expected effects on ITAILY. I'm sure Kyoto would have little effect on ITAILY -- it's economy is already in the toilet. I SERIOUSLY question the conclusions brought there. Also note that the study was CONDUCTED in ITAILY.
I'm a little more comfortable letting a study conducted for the House of Representatives decide the fate of Kyoto rather than one done in Itaily... As HERE.
Actually, if the US used the forests to power it's cars/industry/whatever, it would RELEASE that CO2 in to the atmosphere -- much dirtier (CO2-wise) than oil products.
The only answer to reduce CO2 by any meaningful level is to increasingly use nuclear power. Wind generators would be nice -- but where are you going to put enough wind-mill farms to provide the power necessary for an industrialized nation? Solar power you say? Maybe -- but it's so ineffecient.
The world might just need to bite the bullet and either accept higher levels of CO2 or nuclear power -- at least until solar panels can be produced which offer greater effenciency. Either that, or about 80 of the global population needs to take a lesson from lemmings and run off a cliff in to the ocean.
How much of the world economy is tied to the US? I'm sure the the world wouldn't be effected by a US depression caused by meeting the scientifically unproven necessity of such drastic measures, right?
Aside from that, India and China are excempt from Kyoto. Why? They produce HUGE amounts of CO2. And the only reason German and France are in easy compliance is because France generates the majority of it's electricity by nuclear power -- which the US TRIES to impliment -- but gets flack from the same people (both forign and domestic) who approve Kyoto -- and Germany REDUCED it's rate after the fall of the DDR (industrial clean-up of soviet germany). They've managed to put all of Europe in a "bubble" and all enjoy the exessive pollution produced by the eastern european contries which have since cleaned up after the fall of Soviet Russia.
The fact is Kyoto is designed to allow Europe an economic edge over the United States and provide an opportunity to paint Americans as greedy monsters.
You are absolutely correct. The original information I was going on was from a Princston study done in 1998 which calculated the absorbsion of carbon sinks in the US. Searching for an internet link of that study I found there was a follow up study which recently re-calculated the figures to show that the US is in fact producing more CO2 than it takes in -- creating a net production of around 700-1000 million tons per year.
My information was outdated. Great catch.
Still, the article you cited seems to indicate that as soon as a tree is cut, the CO2 jumps magically back in to the atmosphere -- something which doesn't happen:
"When we chopped down the forests, we released carbon trapped in the trees into the atmosphere," says Stephen Pacala, a Princeton professor of ecology and evolutionary biology and the study's lead author
I'll need to track down the study your article points to and read up on it. I also dont doubt there's a followup to the study you cite in the makes. There's also still the problem of what effect, if any, human produced CO2 has on the climate over time.
Bacteria is biomass. The bacteria die and theoretically, the CO2 would be released back in to the atmosphere. That would be without the "fill" part of landfill. With landfill, you end up with something along the ways of what happens with oceanic biomass. Over time, it could leach in to sedimentary rock, for example.
We also need to remember that the vast MAJORITY of carbon that is generated is absorbed by the ocean and it's biomass -- which ends up as oceanic sediment. Lots of carbon sitting on the ocean floor. Can you say 'limestone'?
The vast majority of that paper pulp ends up in land fill. Guess what? Soil biomass. The sink is maintained.
What you FAIL to mention is that the US is also one of the largest CO2 SINKS. If I make $200 million dollars this year, that would be GREAT! And everyone would think how rich I am if you fail to mention that I will have $220 million in expenses.
Work on being intellectually honest. Try and think things through. If you know that country X produces Y amount of CO2, you need to ask, is that NET or GROSS? And what does it absorb?
once they die, decay restores their lifetime of consumed CO2 to the atmosphere.
Unless, of course, they are cut up in to 2x4s or crunched up in to paper-pulp. Most of the forests cut down in the US are used in such a way as the 'sink' is maintained indefinately or converted to soil biomass. Outside the US, most forests are cleared for slash/burn farming. INSTANTLY releasing the CO2 back in to the atmosphere.
The US is a net CARBON SINK. One of the largest in the world. Why should the US be punished by Kyoto when it is currently sucking up more CO2 than virtually any other SINK nation while other nations are PRODUCING CO2 but suffer no penalties? I wonder...
So... pay the debt faster? Sounds like a good idea, right? Which part? The government 'trust funds'? Debts held by the public? T-bills? Notes? Bonds? Learn economics, 'um' boy. An interesting article to start with is here. The debt is a phantom used by both parties to bash eash other. While it could spiral out of control, there is no evidence that this is even a remote possibility right now -- and all economic indicators suggest that it would severely hurt the economy and hamstring our ability to fight down-turns, recessions and depressions.
And where did you learn your RECENT history? I got my tax rebate check WELL before 9-11. You saying that it's a vast government conspiracy and they KNEW the attacks were coming since the 1970s?
First, I'm not young. I'm 37. Hardly old, but hardly young. Second, I'm not a republican. How dare you paint me with a single brush stroke based on one comment I make concerning taxes and tax breaks? I resent it. For what it's worth, I have no party affiliation -- I'm disgusted by both the democrats and republicans on the grounds of gross hypocracy.
Your soliloquy fails to address the PROBLEM. You ascribe all the nations problems to the weathly 'raping' the poor and middle class while I would point that as only a SYMPTOM of the problem. The US his hemorrhaging cash in a big way -- via entitlement programs which are so grossly mis-managed that fruad is eclipsed by bureaucratic waste -- and to lesser degrees defense spending (the two largest blocks of the US budget.
Tossing money at the problem is *NOT* a solution.
Redistribution of wealth is the nature of charity.
No, the NATURE of charity is that its voluntary. Dont get me wrong, social 'controls' as you say are fine -- so long as they are managed with the controllers having accountability and stiff penalities for fraud.
Do you think that I should give weight to a person making $8/hr at WalMart, who lives in a trailer, allegedly enjoying figher jet protection from Iraqis who are about 12000 miles away?
Yeah, that's the only benefit they enjoy from the tax burden of others. THINK. Ever hear of WellFamily programs? Innerstate highways? Federal law enforcement? OSHA? Just to name a few. Your $8/hr eidolon and all the other $8/hr eidolons dont come CLOSE to paying for the security, safty and entitlements they enjoy. THINK! Just because you can't immediately see a benefit doesn't mean that it's not there nor does it mean that it doesn't cost money.
To your credit, you make very valid points concerning the abuse of corporate shelters by individuals. However, it has very little to do with what was being discussed. The discussion was concerned an underestimate of tax revenue and a refund to the taxpayer. If a guy enjoying a tax-shelter paid no imcome tax, he no refund. It's based on, as it should be, TAXES PAID.
Please notice that I didn't paint you as a democrat -- even though most of your arguments are straight party talking points. What we need is to STOP teaching moral and ethical relativism and START teaching intelectual honesty and ethics.
The thing that's not mentioned is that the guy who paid the most for dinner got an incredible feast for his money, including a hotel stay, movie, and air travel to and from the hotel... while the guy who paid the least also got the equivalent of "just crumbs".
Dude. Get a grip. What feast are you talking about? The TAXES paid by person 1 went to the programs that persons 2 and 3 enjoy! THEY PAID for persons 2 and 3's feast ALREADY in the form of defence, entitlement programs, etc. When it's found out that the tax burden was OVER paid, what do you want to do? Find an excuse for redistrubution of weath rather than refund the over-charge.
Thats like finding out the restaurant over changed you but refuses to pay you back because they want to buy more decorations (read un-approved government spending for that tax year). Jeez. If you're going to argue, at least think it through!
Also, there's a total difference between PERSONAL income tax and corporate tax -- the enron example is totally bogus here.
If you really want to live in the world you discribe above, please dont take my capitolism away from me -- move somewhere where socialism already exists -- that way we can both be happy.
...USA allowed Saddam's army to mow them down from the sky INSIDE THE SO-CALLED NO-FLY ZONE.
I'll deal with this first... at the time this happened, there WAS no 'NO FLY ZONE'. That this happened was a result of a poorly written cease fire -- blame Stormin' Norman -- he let Iraqi fly ARMED choppers. As a result of this, the 'no-fly-zone' was established.
Next, I'd HARDLY call what the kurds (north) and shittes (south)were planning was a coup... more of breaking away from iraq-proper and forming their own little 'country'.
Get your facts straight and dont be so quick to call others names -- it's polarizing a topic that is already loaded with passion...
How do you know that the anger over H1 visas aren't the result of some whiney people who lost their job ?
I was under the impression that H1 visas were to provide US companies with skilled labor when there wasn't enough available in the US. I *DONT* think H1 visas were to provide US companies a means of lowering their labor costs at the expense of american labor.
There may be valid arguements with regards to 'IF A will work for $1.75/hr then let company X hire him! Supply and demand! Capitolism!' etc. etc. etc. However, that is a discussion that is completely unrelated to what the purpose of H1 visas are supposed to provide.
Think. Most large companies who employ US works end up providing a HUGE tax revenue to the government. Not only does a dramatic drop in wages effect the amount of revenue the US can generate, but by out-sourcing labor entirely the revenue can be eliminated.
Not only does labor suffer, but so do those who BENEFIT from labor -- welfare, medicare, SS, etc. etc.
This cant continue without some serious downsizing of the US lifestyle AND social programs. I'll bet a shiney new nickle that when this starts to hit home, you'll see some heavily protectionist legislation start to pass...
Actually, the Atari version had support for 4 players with joysticks -- on an 800 or an upgraded 400. You COULD do 3 players on newer machines (800xl, 1200xl, the xe's, etc.) with one joystick and two paddles by passing around the joystick during each players turn. The paddles were only used during the auction.
I've got a p166 that I use exclusivly for atari emulation which includes two game-port cards for a total of 4 joysticks. Every now and then I STILL play mule -- usually with my old atari crowd (some of which are 40+ years old now!). This game was and *IS* fun.
I do have one observation: every person I've tried to introduce to mule who is 25 and under just doesn't "get it". I don't think they can get past the graphics.
This is very true. If you've got a decent resume as far as CS/IT goes and a strong background in the medical field, you're set. Not just hospitals and private practices -- but medical laboratories, HMOs, insurance (medical) carriers, etc... The better you are able to relate to the people who will use the technology/software/data you monitor, the greater your value to your employeer -- and this isn't more true than in the medical field.
10) Movie Jealousy?
by spun
David Brin has been forthright concerning his jealousy over bad SF being made into movies while his work is not...
It's been my experience that GOOD sf books turn in to NASTY sf movies. Since David Brin's name was brought up, let's look at The Postman. In my opinion, it was a fantastic story which, once turned in to a movie made me feel like I'd been violated
Of course, it might have been entirely the fault of Kevin Costner...
I'm not sure I understand why...
on
NYT on RFID Tags
·
· Score: 1
this is a big deal...
The tags are removed at time of purchase. They can already 'track' your purchases at checkout. So what if they can track that there's a can of RAID in my cart at 100 feet... I'm buying it anyway -- if I pay with a card, it's trackable. If I pay with cash, less so.
I'd be concerned if these "tracking devices" were still active after I got home and opened up my box of cheese dip and crackers and the "black helicopters (tm)" were overhead.
This wont stop spam from outside the country. This wont stop the abuse of open relays. It might be a step in the right direction, but it's not going to do much good putting our thumb in the tiny crack in the damn when the water is flooding over the top.
In my opinion, once we have a better presence in space, you'll see something along the lines of a "space dock". Large craft like the shuttle would get an inspection WHILE in orbit that is about as comprehensive as the one they get on the ground. Don't expect this anytime soon -- but I believe that this WILL happen eventually.
That is if we are dedicated to the space program...
Hipocracy? I completely disagree with you here. You commit an obvious logical fallacy by asserting that because I (from your baseless assumption of my driving habits which I still haven't affirmed or denied because I STILL say it's not part of this discussion) break a LAW (which I never SIGNED anything agreeing to follow -- although you could use Socrates "social contract" theory here) is somehow justification for willfully signing a contract with the INTENT of breaking it.
Assuming I *DO* speed, so what? How does that justify someone breaking a contract? Thats nothing but rationalization and equivication. In your "speeding" analogy, I *WOULD* be a hipcrite were I to be "sactimonious" about the importance of not speeding.
Another fallacy you proprose is that someone has ONE and ONLY ONE connectivity option. This is silly. There are PLEANTY of dialup ISPs available nationwide. There is no RIGHT that ANYONE has to broadband. In fact, there is no RIGHT that ANYONE has to INTERNET ACCESS.
As far as sanctimony -- if thats what I'm doing when I point out that it's "not really a big deal" when an ISP wants to enforce a contract agreed to and signed by itself and customers -- then I guess I'm guilty of sanctimony. However, I would STRONGLY suggest you look over your argument with a critical eye. You may find that you are guilty of rationalization.
Hmmm... my original reply to you vanished. Slash bug?
Here it is:
What stones am I casting?
Also, your driver's license analogy is poor. There are legal differences between a "social contract" and a legally binding contract. Besides, if I were to exceed the speed limit, I would suffer the ramifications if I did (i.e., a ticket and possible jail time depending on how great the violation was). Not to mention the increase to car insurance... (note that I neither verified nor denied your assumption -- mostly as it doesn't matter in this discussion).
You might want to check out this site Particularly "Attacking the person". Tossing out logical fallacies is not the best way to make a point.
Slashdot Mirror
The article you cite is 6 years old -- dated 1997. The economic cost/benefit analysis suggested by it may have been true based on the goals of Kyoto in 1997. I'll also suggest that it wasn't until 2001 when the US withdrew from Kyoto after the EU lead by France and Germany helped bend the USs ability to use natural CO2 sinks and engage in emissions trading.
Got a study of any of those 2500 economists' take on Kyoto AFTER the Hague conference in November 2000?
I'll agree that was the INTENTION of kyoto. Perhaps a better way of stated that would have been:
"The fact is Kyoto has been bent by France and Germany to allow Europe an economic edge over the United States and provide an opportunity to paint Americans as greedy monsters."
And the word "fact" here is wrong. I should have indicated that its what I believe based on France and Germany's posturing during the November 2000 at The Hague. Why would they posture to limit the US's ability to count carbon sinks and limit the US's ability to use emissions trading?
Did you read your source? I seriously question it. They base the conclusion on a study of expected effects on ITAILY. I'm sure Kyoto would have little effect on ITAILY -- it's economy is already in the toilet. I SERIOUSLY question the conclusions brought there. Also note that the study was CONDUCTED in ITAILY.
I'm a little more comfortable letting a study conducted for the House of Representatives decide the fate of Kyoto rather than one done in Itaily... As HERE.
Actually, if the US used the forests to power it's cars/industry/whatever, it would RELEASE that CO2 in to the atmosphere -- much dirtier (CO2-wise) than oil products.
The only answer to reduce CO2 by any meaningful level is to increasingly use nuclear power. Wind generators would be nice -- but where are you going to put enough wind-mill farms to provide the power necessary for an industrialized nation? Solar power you say? Maybe -- but it's so ineffecient.
The world might just need to bite the bullet and either accept higher levels of CO2 or nuclear power -- at least until solar panels can be produced which offer greater effenciency. Either that, or about 80 of the global population needs to take a lesson from lemmings and run off a cliff in to the ocean.
To both your basic reasons:
How much of the world economy is tied to the US? I'm sure the the world wouldn't be effected by a US depression caused by meeting the scientifically unproven necessity of such drastic measures, right?
Aside from that, India and China are excempt from Kyoto. Why? They produce HUGE amounts of CO2. And the only reason German and France are in easy compliance is because France generates the majority of it's electricity by nuclear power -- which the US TRIES to impliment -- but gets flack from the same people (both forign and domestic) who approve Kyoto -- and Germany REDUCED it's rate after the fall of the DDR (industrial clean-up of soviet germany). They've managed to put all of Europe in a "bubble" and all enjoy the exessive pollution produced by the eastern european contries which have since cleaned up after the fall of Soviet Russia.
The fact is Kyoto is designed to allow Europe an economic edge over the United States and provide an opportunity to paint Americans as greedy monsters.
My information was outdated. Great catch.
Still, the article you cited seems to indicate that as soon as a tree is cut, the CO2 jumps magically back in to the atmosphere -- something which doesn't happen:I'll need to track down the study your article points to and read up on it. I also dont doubt there's a followup to the study you cite in the makes. There's also still the problem of what effect, if any, human produced CO2 has on the climate over time.
Bacteria is biomass. The bacteria die and theoretically, the CO2 would be released back in to the atmosphere. That would be without the "fill" part of landfill. With landfill, you end up with something along the ways of what happens with oceanic biomass. Over time, it could leach in to sedimentary rock, for example.
We also need to remember that the vast MAJORITY of carbon that is generated is absorbed by the ocean and it's biomass -- which ends up as oceanic sediment. Lots of carbon sitting on the ocean floor. Can you say 'limestone'?
The vast majority of that paper pulp ends up in land fill. Guess what? Soil biomass. The sink is maintained.
What you FAIL to mention is that the US is also one of the largest CO2 SINKS. If I make $200 million dollars this year, that would be GREAT! And everyone would think how rich I am if you fail to mention that I will have $220 million in expenses.
Work on being intellectually honest. Try and think things through. If you know that country X produces Y amount of CO2, you need to ask, is that NET or GROSS? And what does it absorb?
-jhon
The US is a net CARBON SINK. One of the largest in the world. Why should the US be punished by Kyoto when it is currently sucking up more CO2 than virtually any other SINK nation while other nations are PRODUCING CO2 but suffer no penalties? I wonder...
So... pay the debt faster? Sounds like a good idea, right? Which part? The government 'trust funds'? Debts held by the public? T-bills? Notes? Bonds? Learn economics, 'um' boy. An interesting article to start with is here. The debt is a phantom used by both parties to bash eash other. While it could spiral out of control, there is no evidence that this is even a remote possibility right now -- and all economic indicators suggest that it would severely hurt the economy and hamstring our ability to fight down-turns, recessions and depressions.
And where did you learn your RECENT history? I got my tax rebate check WELL before 9-11. You saying that it's a vast government conspiracy and they KNEW the attacks were coming since the 1970s?
Your soliloquy fails to address the PROBLEM. You ascribe all the nations problems to the weathly 'raping' the poor and middle class while I would point that as only a SYMPTOM of the problem. The US his hemorrhaging cash in a big way -- via entitlement programs which are so grossly mis-managed that fruad is eclipsed by bureaucratic waste -- and to lesser degrees defense spending (the two largest blocks of the US budget.
Tossing money at the problem is *NOT* a solution.
No, the NATURE of charity is that its voluntary. Dont get me wrong, social 'controls' as you say are fine -- so long as they are managed with the controllers having accountability and stiff penalities for fraud.
Yeah, that's the only benefit they enjoy from the tax burden of others. THINK. Ever hear of WellFamily programs? Innerstate highways? Federal law enforcement? OSHA? Just to name a few. Your $8/hr eidolon and all the other $8/hr eidolons dont come CLOSE to paying for the security, safty and entitlements they enjoy. THINK! Just because you can't immediately see a benefit doesn't mean that it's not there nor does it mean that it doesn't cost money.
To your credit, you make very valid points concerning the abuse of corporate shelters by individuals. However, it has very little to do with what was being discussed. The discussion was concerned an underestimate of tax revenue and a refund to the taxpayer. If a guy enjoying a tax-shelter paid no imcome tax, he no refund. It's based on, as it should be, TAXES PAID.
Please notice that I didn't paint you as a democrat -- even though most of your arguments are straight party talking points. What we need is to STOP teaching moral and ethical relativism and START teaching intelectual honesty and ethics.
Thats like finding out the restaurant over changed you but refuses to pay you back because they want to buy more decorations (read un-approved government spending for that tax year). Jeez. If you're going to argue, at least think it through!
Also, there's a total difference between PERSONAL income tax and corporate tax -- the enron example is totally bogus here.
If you really want to live in the world you discribe above, please dont take my capitolism away from me -- move somewhere where socialism already exists -- that way we can both be happy.
Next, I'd HARDLY call what the kurds (north) and shittes (south)were planning was a coup... more of breaking away from iraq-proper and forming their own little 'country'.
Get your facts straight and dont be so quick to call others names -- it's polarizing a topic that is already loaded with passion...
-jhon
There may be valid arguements with regards to 'IF A will work for $1.75/hr then let company X hire him! Supply and demand! Capitolism!' etc. etc. etc. However, that is a discussion that is completely unrelated to what the purpose of H1 visas are supposed to provide.
-jhon
Think. Most large companies who employ US works end up providing a HUGE tax revenue to the government. Not only does a dramatic drop in wages effect the amount of revenue the US can generate, but by out-sourcing labor entirely the revenue can be eliminated.
Not only does labor suffer, but so do those who BENEFIT from labor -- welfare, medicare, SS, etc. etc.
This cant continue without some serious downsizing of the US lifestyle AND social programs. I'll bet a shiney new nickle that when this starts to hit home, you'll see some heavily protectionist legislation start to pass...
-jhon
Actually, the Atari version had support for 4 players with joysticks -- on an 800 or an upgraded 400. You COULD do 3 players on newer machines (800xl, 1200xl, the xe's, etc.) with one joystick and two paddles by passing around the joystick during each players turn. The paddles were only used during the auction.
I've got a p166 that I use exclusivly for atari emulation which includes two game-port cards for a total of 4 joysticks. Every now and then I STILL play mule -- usually with my old atari crowd (some of which are 40+ years old now!). This game was and *IS* fun.
I do have one observation: every person I've tried to introduce to mule who is 25 and under just doesn't "get it". I don't think they can get past the graphics.
-jhon
Or you could be an orderly...
Of course, it might have been entirely the fault of Kevin Costner...
- Jhon
But this is what HITLER tried to do!
Guess this is the end of the discussion, huh? heh.
It's pining for the fiords!
this is a big deal...
The tags are removed at time of purchase. They can already 'track' your purchases at checkout. So what if they can track that there's a can of RAID in my cart at 100 feet... I'm buying it anyway -- if I pay with a card, it's trackable. If I pay with cash, less so.
I'd be concerned if these "tracking devices" were still active after I got home and opened up my box of cheese dip and crackers and the "black helicopters (tm)" were overhead.
Try looking at the recent stories of the Catholic church acceptance of the Harry Potter books. Check google.
I'd say if they can say thats "ok", D&D should at least be part of the same or similar genre.
If that doesn't work, smile, wink and make her save vs. charm.
-jhon
This wont stop spam from outside the country. This wont stop the abuse of open relays. It might be a step in the right direction, but it's not going to do much good putting our thumb in the tiny crack in the damn when the water is flooding over the top.
-Jhon
In my opinion, once we have a better presence in space, you'll see something along the lines of a "space dock". Large craft like the shuttle would get an inspection WHILE in orbit that is about as comprehensive as the one they get on the ground. Don't expect this anytime soon -- but I believe that this WILL happen eventually.
That is if we are dedicated to the space program...
-jhon
Hipocracy? I completely disagree with you here. You commit an obvious logical fallacy by asserting that because I (from your baseless assumption of my driving habits which I still haven't affirmed or denied because I STILL say it's not part of this discussion) break a LAW (which I never SIGNED anything agreeing to follow -- although you could use Socrates "social contract" theory here) is somehow justification for willfully signing a contract with the INTENT of breaking it.
Assuming I *DO* speed, so what? How does that justify someone breaking a contract? Thats nothing but rationalization and equivication. In your "speeding" analogy, I *WOULD* be a hipcrite were I to be "sactimonious" about the importance of not speeding.
Another fallacy you proprose is that someone has ONE and ONLY ONE connectivity option. This is silly. There are PLEANTY of dialup ISPs available nationwide. There is no RIGHT that ANYONE has to broadband. In fact, there is no RIGHT that ANYONE has to INTERNET ACCESS.
As far as sanctimony -- if thats what I'm doing when I point out that it's "not really a big deal" when an ISP wants to enforce a contract agreed to and signed by itself and customers -- then I guess I'm guilty of sanctimony. However, I would STRONGLY suggest you look over your argument with a critical eye. You may find that you are guilty of rationalization.
-jhon
Hmmm... my original reply to you vanished. Slash bug?
Here it is:
What stones am I casting?
Also, your driver's license analogy is poor. There are legal differences between a "social contract" and a legally binding contract. Besides, if I were to exceed the speed limit, I would suffer the ramifications if I did (i.e., a ticket and possible jail time depending on how great the violation was). Not to mention the increase to car insurance... (note that I neither verified nor denied your assumption -- mostly as it doesn't matter in this discussion).
You might want to check out this site Particularly "Attacking the person". Tossing out logical fallacies is not the best way to make a point.