look around, isn't the fact thet you are alive proof enough that there is some force inthe universerse muchmore powerful then anything you have ever experienced.
Some force? What's that got to do with the idea of God?
How old was the girl he met? I mean, are we talking about a 17 year old again (which is above the age of consent in many places), or did he manage to lure say a 13 year old?
I don't want to have to shut down all my applications, and reboot just to play a quick game, and then have to reboot and reopen everything afterwards. Furthermore if I'm playing a long game, I may like to take an occasional break to check email or whatever, or maybe someone I know might want to contact me over IM.
Rebooting between games was fine in the early 1990s, when people didn't have Internet access and computers were generally used for less things, but I don't see why it's suddenly cool to now slip back past 15 years of progress.
But then, what is a right? When does my freedom encroach on yours? Does an internet user's right to go to whatever website they choose encroach on the right of 13 year olds not to be stalked and raped?
You're confusing "right to go to a website" with "must be forced to go to a website". People still have the choice not to go to Myspace if they think it's so dangerous. And stalking and rape would still be illegal, so this doesn't effect that right anyway.
Every piece of criticism is pushed as far down the article as possible and then deleted. They have something like ten different editors. If you look at their histories they don't edit many other articles.
Out of interest, can you provide some examples? I see the article does in fact have a "Criticism" section, which is fairly high up, not to mention a dedicated article for Criticism of Wal-Mart. I believe there are ways to attract the attentions of other editors on Wikipedia - it shouldn't be that hard to outnumber ten people on a popular article such as this, but maybe I'm wrong.
Seriously, put a Mac and a, um, Dell in front of 1000 people and ask them to point to the PC.
Well, firstly your question is loaded, in that "point to the PC" implies that only one can be a PC, implying which definition of "PC" is being used, and only geeks are likely to give pedantic all-inclusive answers.
But if you asked "How many PCs do you see", I'd say the situation would be the reverse. The geek is more likely to use "PC" to mean a particular architecture, and say "1" (although a pedantic geek would probably point out both definitions), whilst the average person would say "2".
The average person isn't going to know about operating systems (how will they react if you put a Linux PC in front of them?) nor know the technical differences between the hardware. It's possible that if they see enough Apple adverts, they'll learn that "Apple logo means it isn't a PC", but that would be an example of advertising influencing people, not the other way round (and certainly it won't have had an impact yet, since until recently Apple ads told people that Macs were PCs).
Have a look at these old Apple Manuals/Advertisments and you will see that Apple has been calling their products Personal Computers since day one.
You don't even have to look that far back. Remember their "Fastest PC"? "First 64 bit PC"? There they were happy to use the definition of "any personal computer (except those which are faster, or were 64 bit years ago)". Indeed, their whole argument of being able to claim that Macs counted whilst Alphas for example didn't *depended* on the argument that Macs were PCs. Now they state this isn't the case.
Apple is marketing to the general public - the people who use "PC" to mean a "computer using Windows"
I have to disagree - to the general public (i.e., not us geeks), a "PC" means a computer. In practice it means a computer using Windows, but only because most PCs run Windows, and not by definition. Put a different machine there, and they'll still think of it as a PC.
They're using informal language because the people they're targeting know exactly what they mean when they say "PC" - their audience knows that the "Windows" is implied.
Not really - most people don't have a clue what an Operating System is.
Even I was confused by their "For years Intel chips have only run on PCs... now they run on something else"; I was assuming it was going to be some embedded application, console or some "media device" thingy. I don't mind them trying to distinguish Macs as not being "PCs", but the way do it is rather confusing, not to mention inconsistent since they also run adverts saying that Macs are PCs.
Burglars break in houses with the most vulnerable alarm system, not because of the popularity of the alarm system.
Your argument if flawed - just because burglars would go for the most vulnerable system doesn't mean that the converse is true. If there was one system in 90+% of houses, and one system in barely a few % of houses, and both were of comparable security, then everyone would learn to break the more popular system. You can't conclude that the more popular system must also be more secure!
Even if the less popular system was a bit more insecure, I'd still be be able to burgle more houses by learning to break the more popular system. This only changes if the less popular system is significantly more insecure.
You are starting off with the assumption that one system is significantly more insecure, and that's what people are disputing.
You need to go to Sweden to see the benefits to a well implemented National ID system.
Okay, let's take a look at your link:
"In Sweden, holding identity cards is not compulsory"
Oh right, so you are arguing with opponents of a compulsory scheme, based on a country where it isn't compulsory? We already have voluntary forms of ID, which are required for things like jobs.
"There is no national format for the document; a variety of documents, like driver's licences, passports and ID cards issued by the post and banks are all valid for the purpose."
Eh? So in other words, there isn't a national ID card in Sweden after all? This is exactly what we have in the UK!
"it is compulsory to belong to the register containing the ID card data. At birth, or when settling in the country , everyone receives a personal identity number"
What else is kept on the register? In the UK, we also have a number (National Insurance Number). A number isn't the same as fingerprints.
At first I was going to respond saying that just because some forms of "national ID" work, that doesn't mean they have anything in common with what the UK Government is proposing. Now, it turns out that what Sweden have is just like what the UK already has anyway, and they don't have anything like what the UK Government is proposing!
I think you need to understand the difference between "ID" (which no one objects to) and "national ID card scheme" (which come in many different forms; some may oppose only some forms, some may oppose all).
The reason businesses require that you have one is (I think) because they can trace you and collect debts via the kronofogden. People with an ID are thus a much lower risk than those without. It's not so much the physical card that makes it possible, more the personummer it contains. And because businesses need it, the tax people can rely on you having one.
Just like we already have in the UK.
The problem I have with the UK is that well meaning but naive liberals are lining up with scum like George Galloway and old hippies like Glenda Jackson to campaign against something which is designed to make life hard for people who want to welch on their debts and avoid taxes. In fact if you Google for it, the first page or so of entries are uniformly hostile. But if you look at other European countries, an ID register defintely has it's uses.
The problem I have is that well meaning but naive fascists are lining up with scum like Blair to campaign for something, based on the arguments that "it works well in Europe" even though those systems are not at all the same as those being proposed by the UK Government [of course, I wouldn't phrase it quite like that, but since we're putting ridiculous labels on those who disagree, why not?]
What we "liberals" oppose is the scheme being proposed by the UK Government. What we "liberals" oppose is people who think that because they think "ID" is a good thing, they argue in favour of what Labour are proposing, without even having a clue as to what they are actually proposing.
Not that it matters, both of the parties that actually have a chance of winning an election are committed to some kind of ID register at least.
Since you seem to be unable to distinguish between "national ID card scheme and database" and "any form of ID or any database", then yes, I suspect all parties, not just the main two, are in favour of "some kind of ID".
However, the Conservatives are against Labour's ID card scheme, so you are wrong (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3127696.stm - the fact that your link claims the Conservatives support the scheme is proof that that whoever wrote the website doesn't have a clue about UK affairs). Though sadly, Labour will probably still be voted in by people like you who have no idea what the scheme involves.
1) A national ID system means that businesses choose to only do business with people who have an ID because.
But we already have various forms of ID, and businesses are free to choose to only do business with those with ID. There is no reason why a compulsory new form of ID would change that.
5) So the tax base increases.
If this really is the case, then why am I in the UK having to fork out £90+ for it? If this is going to save money for the Government, we should not be required to pay out for it.
I've sat on a train in Sweden listening to two people talk about how it's easier to get 'unofficial' jobs in the UK because 'you don't need any papers'.
If UK employers employee people without asking for ID, how on earth will that change with ID cards? Those employers could ask for ID now if they want to. The problem is with employers wanting to hire people without worrying about if they are immigrants or not; the problem is not to do with ID cards.
Even stranger, I've gone to a NHS hospital in the UK and got very expensive medical treatment without showing any ID at all, whereas both Sweden and Germany demand at least some paperwork.
Perhaps because doctors believe in treating humans, rather than deciding that only some "deserve" it.
In Sweden, there is no way to do anything, even renting a video tape unless you have a personal number, and that is tied to you registering for tax, but I could survive quite happily in the UK without notifying the authorities at all. I suspect that the UK pays a fairly heavy price for this.
OMG, those evil immigrants renting video tapes!!! How will we survive!!!
If you are really so keep to stop unauthorised people renting video tapes, then please, send me £90; you can pay for mine, if you believe so strongly in it.
so it's possible that ID cards may catch a few potential terrorists too.
People who oppose the cards seem to frequently be afraid that some type of shameful behavior will be revealed. That is not a compelling argument to people who don't engage in shameful behavior.
People with a private life tend not to be ashamed of it - the problem is that other people like you think it is shameful.
Unsurprisingly, people do not want their privacy revealed to people who will call it shameful; the very tone of your post demonstrates why privacy should be preserved.
Why yes of course, here in Belgium as in France, Slovakia, Switzerland and all other Nation-ID-card-toting countries, we have a special police force going through everyone's trash at 4am just in case someone cut up their ID and threw it away... in which case you're thrown straight into jail! No questions asked! Yes-siree
But in the UK at least, this will be a crime, punishable by up to 51 weeks in prison. This is a fact, not some paranoid fear. Yes, they may not find out by going through your trash, but if they find out you are or were without ID (e.g., they ask for it, or you decide to get some new ID in future), then you are guilty.
Yes, you were joking, but passports / ID cards can get mistakingly thrown away / lost / destroyed. In France when that happens, you just go to a local police station, tell them you lost your wallet (or whatever) and they make you fill in a form saying "I [insert ANY NAME YOU WANT] have lost my ID. I declare that I live [INSERT ANY ADDRESS]" it's officialy stamped and you get to keep a copy, it's valid 3 months or so but isn't considered official in any way of course. It just means that you declared you lost your stuff and that's why you don't have ID on you. For example I used this when I signed up late for university. I didn't have an excuse so quickly went and got one of these forms and managed to enroll.
How easy is it to get the proper replacement ID, if that's only temporary?
In the UK, getting a replacement passport is a huge hassle, requiring people to declare who you are, and an additional cost. The ID card is tied to the passport, but will be even more of a hassle, requiring biometrics and interviews, and even more cost (£90+). There will be no simple form to fill out at your local police station - having a card lost or damaged will involve significant personal time and cost.
The problem here is that not all ID card schemes are the same. Few people have a problem with "card with your name and photo on that you are given, and you can throw away if you like" - the objections are to all the other things being proposed with them. But people hear "ID card" and mistakenly just think it's a piece of plastic with your name on it.
The objections are not to having a new form of ID available, but to making it compulsory, to the accompanying database which Governments want to sneak into many of the proposed ID card schemes, and to the introduction of a new set of crimes, criminalising people for not following every rule associated with the card.
Oh, and most "ID theft" won't be helped at all by an ID card - e.g., how's that going to work when someone steals your debit card?
There are plenty of examples of how Governments and police have misused additional circumstanstial evidence, without relying on actual evidence - for example, http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,1 6132,1575532,00.html . In particular, "The officer explains what made them change their mind and arrest me. Apparently, on August 4, 2004, there was a firearms incident at the company where I work. The next day I find out that there had been a hoax call the previous year, apparently from a temp claiming there was an armed intruder. Some staff had also been seen photographing tube stations with a camera phone. On June 2, as part of a team-building exercise, new colleagues were supposed to photograph landmarks and try to get a picture of themselves with a policeman." With these sorts of abuses, I do not like the idea of more information being held in databases that police can mine, and use to arrest innocent people.
As for other loss of rights - with the UK's card, you will use your freedom (i.e., go to prison) if you fail to sign up for the scheme (requiring interview, fingerprinting and personal cost of £90+), and also if you fail to notify the authorities if your card is ever lost, stolen or merely damaged.
Your turn: tell us what known benefits these cards bring. Actual examples with evidence, not hypothetical claims.
Even if by some miracle you are right, and an ID card supposedly saves money, can you tell me why the UK Government will require me to fork out £90+ for the card? Surely, if what you say was correct, they should be paying me if anything?
Furthermore, welfare isn't just about who's entitled to it - everyone benefits from it. In particular (b) An immigrant with a disease can infect non-immigrants; (c) I'm not sure why a child should have no right to education because of who his parents are - but letting children grow up uneducated will just leave the problem later on of uneducated adults who may now need welfare; (d) I'm really not sure what you are saying - if a criminal commits a crime, then he needs to be caught whoever the victim was!
Protest the law, not the enforcement ability. If you're willing to accept a law then you should be willing to accept that every infraction will result in punishement.
Who says we accept the bad laws?
Protesting the laws is fine in theory, but in practice it's hard to overturn many different laws that already exist, but easier to prevent a single new system that would make enforcing such laws easier (not to mention that we can do both - protest the law and the new systems).
Put it this way: If we lived in some happy fantasy land where the were no "bad laws" (e.g., the Government kept its nose out of what consenting adults did in private), and we could be guaranteed that no such laws would ever be implemented in future, then fine. But in the real world, I'll protest anything that makes it easier to invade people's privacy and enforce such laws.
living in Belgium were having your ID card on you all the time is mandatory, let me say this. It's better than having no ID at all. There are many situation where having an official ID card to prove who you are is very pratical, like when I go to the bank to open an account, when I buy a house,
I may be missing your point, but can you explain why you cannot choose yourself to carry one, if it's such a good idea? Does the Government need to make it compulsory for you, because you can't make that decision?
when the police stop me I produce my ID and don't have to go down to the station to prove who I am
And this just shows how much effect having ID cards has had on you. In countries without ID cards, generally police can't randomly take you to the police station in the first place to demand who you are, unless they have reason to arrest you.
But introducing ID cards changes that, as you admit: now police can demand your papers, and if you forget to have them on you, you have to accompany them to the station (not to mention the possibility of automatically being guilty of a crime for not carrying it).
My understanding is that Australia does have a reasonable health & welfare system, so thats a big carrot (stick?) to wave. But it's still not compulsory.
In other news, Australia announced that following laws was no longer compulsory. You can always choose to go to prison instead. Freedom is a pretty big carrot to wave, but it's still not compulsory.
Before this gets too far into a US vs Europe debate, it should be pointed out that the UK does not currently have ID cards, and that many people oppose the Government's current plans to introduce such a scheme.
Slashdot Mirror
look around, isn't the fact thet you are alive proof enough that there is some force inthe universerse muchmore powerful then anything you have ever experienced.
Some force? What's that got to do with the idea of God?
posed as a 17 year old
How old was the girl he met? I mean, are we talking about a 17 year old again (which is above the age of consent in many places), or did he manage to lure say a 13 year old?
Converting Windows users to OS X is a public service. Converting Windows users to anything is a public service.
(I'd love to see the moderation if someone had said the same about converting people away from OS X.)
But I'll bite: Why is converting people away from Windows a public service?
One word: GAMES
No, I still don't get it.
I don't want to have to shut down all my applications, and reboot just to play a quick game, and then have to reboot and reopen everything afterwards. Furthermore if I'm playing a long game, I may like to take an occasional break to check email or whatever, or maybe someone I know might want to contact me over IM.
Rebooting between games was fine in the early 1990s, when people didn't have Internet access and computers were generally used for less things, but I don't see why it's suddenly cool to now slip back past 15 years of progress.
But then, what is a right? When does my freedom encroach on yours? Does an internet user's right to go to whatever website they choose encroach on the right of 13 year olds not to be stalked and raped?
You're confusing "right to go to a website" with "must be forced to go to a website". People still have the choice not to go to Myspace if they think it's so dangerous. And stalking and rape would still be illegal, so this doesn't effect that right anyway.
Every piece of criticism is pushed as far down the article as possible and then deleted. They have something like ten different editors. If you look at their histories they don't edit many other articles.
Out of interest, can you provide some examples? I see the article does in fact have a "Criticism" section, which is fairly high up, not to mention a dedicated article for Criticism of Wal-Mart. I believe there are ways to attract the attentions of other editors on Wikipedia - it shouldn't be that hard to outnumber ten people on a popular article such as this, but maybe I'm wrong.
Seriously, put a Mac and a, um, Dell in front of 1000 people and ask them to point to the PC.
Well, firstly your question is loaded, in that "point to the PC" implies that only one can be a PC, implying which definition of "PC" is being used, and only geeks are likely to give pedantic all-inclusive answers.
But if you asked "How many PCs do you see", I'd say the situation would be the reverse. The geek is more likely to use "PC" to mean a particular architecture, and say "1" (although a pedantic geek would probably point out both definitions), whilst the average person would say "2".
The average person isn't going to know about operating systems (how will they react if you put a Linux PC in front of them?) nor know the technical differences between the hardware. It's possible that if they see enough Apple adverts, they'll learn that "Apple logo means it isn't a PC", but that would be an example of advertising influencing people, not the other way round (and certainly it won't have had an impact yet, since until recently Apple ads told people that Macs were PCs).
Have a look at these old Apple Manuals/Advertisments and you will see that Apple has been calling their products Personal Computers since day one.
You don't even have to look that far back. Remember their "Fastest PC"? "First 64 bit PC"? There they were happy to use the definition of "any personal computer (except those which are faster, or were 64 bit years ago)". Indeed, their whole argument of being able to claim that Macs counted whilst Alphas for example didn't *depended* on the argument that Macs were PCs. Now they state this isn't the case.
Apple is marketing to the general public - the people who use "PC" to mean a "computer using Windows"
... now they run on something else"; I was assuming it was going to be some embedded application, console or some "media device" thingy. I don't mind them trying to distinguish Macs as not being "PCs", but the way do it is rather confusing, not to mention inconsistent since they also run adverts saying that Macs are PCs.
I have to disagree - to the general public (i.e., not us geeks), a "PC" means a computer. In practice it means a computer using Windows, but only because most PCs run Windows, and not by definition. Put a different machine there, and they'll still think of it as a PC.
They're using informal language because the people they're targeting know exactly what they mean when they say "PC" - their audience knows that the "Windows" is implied.
Not really - most people don't have a clue what an Operating System is.
Even I was confused by their "For years Intel chips have only run on PCs
Burglars break in houses with the most vulnerable alarm system, not because of the popularity of the alarm system.
Your argument if flawed - just because burglars would go for the most vulnerable system doesn't mean that the converse is true. If there was one system in 90+% of houses, and one system in barely a few % of houses, and both were of comparable security, then everyone would learn to break the more popular system. You can't conclude that the more popular system must also be more secure!
Even if the less popular system was a bit more insecure, I'd still be be able to burgle more houses by learning to break the more popular system. This only changes if the less popular system is significantly more insecure.
You are starting off with the assumption that one system is significantly more insecure, and that's what people are disputing.
You need to go to Sweden to see the benefits to a well implemented National ID system.
m - the fact that your link claims the Conservatives support the scheme is proof that that whoever wrote the website doesn't have a clue about UK affairs). Though sadly, Labour will probably still be voted in by people like you who have no idea what the scheme involves.
Okay, let's take a look at your link:
"In Sweden, holding identity cards is not compulsory"
Oh right, so you are arguing with opponents of a compulsory scheme, based on a country where it isn't compulsory? We already have voluntary forms of ID, which are required for things like jobs.
"There is no national format for the document; a variety of documents, like driver's licences, passports and ID cards issued by the post and banks are all valid for the purpose."
Eh? So in other words, there isn't a national ID card in Sweden after all? This is exactly what we have in the UK!
"it is compulsory to belong to the register containing the ID card data. At birth, or when settling in the country , everyone receives a personal identity number"
What else is kept on the register? In the UK, we also have a number (National Insurance Number). A number isn't the same as fingerprints.
At first I was going to respond saying that just because some forms of "national ID" work, that doesn't mean they have anything in common with what the UK Government is proposing. Now, it turns out that what Sweden have is just like what the UK already has anyway, and they don't have anything like what the UK Government is proposing!
I think you need to understand the difference between "ID" (which no one objects to) and "national ID card scheme" (which come in many different forms; some may oppose only some forms, some may oppose all).
The reason businesses require that you have one is (I think) because they can trace you and collect debts via the kronofogden. People with an ID are thus a much lower risk than those without. It's not so much the physical card that makes it possible, more the personummer it contains. And because businesses need it, the tax people can rely on you having one.
Just like we already have in the UK.
The problem I have with the UK is that well meaning but naive liberals are lining up with scum like George Galloway and old hippies like Glenda Jackson to campaign against something which is designed to make life hard for people who want to welch on their debts and avoid taxes. In fact if you Google for it, the first page or so of entries are uniformly hostile. But if you look at other European countries, an ID register defintely has it's uses.
The problem I have is that well meaning but naive fascists are lining up with scum like Blair to campaign for something, based on the arguments that "it works well in Europe" even though those systems are not at all the same as those being proposed by the UK Government [of course, I wouldn't phrase it quite like that, but since we're putting ridiculous labels on those who disagree, why not?]
What we "liberals" oppose is the scheme being proposed by the UK Government. What we "liberals" oppose is people who think that because they think "ID" is a good thing, they argue in favour of what Labour are proposing, without even having a clue as to what they are actually proposing.
Not that it matters, both of the parties that actually have a chance of winning an election are committed to some kind of ID register at least.
Since you seem to be unable to distinguish between "national ID card scheme and database" and "any form of ID or any database", then yes, I suspect all parties, not just the main two, are in favour of "some kind of ID".
However, the Conservatives are against Labour's ID card scheme, so you are wrong (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3127696.st
1) A national ID system means that businesses choose to only do business with people who have an ID because.
But we already have various forms of ID, and businesses are free to choose to only do business with those with ID. There is no reason why a compulsory new form of ID would change that.
5) So the tax base increases.
If this really is the case, then why am I in the UK having to fork out £90+ for it? If this is going to save money for the Government, we should not be required to pay out for it.
But I bet that adults said the same of your generation when you were a kid. Just like every generation of adults says the same of the next generation.
DCE "might" have some out with a 68060 based Amiga in the form of a a6000 but I have never met one.
There certainly was a 68060 based Amiga - the A4000T, which was available in 68040 and 68060 versions ( http://www.amigau.com/aig/a4000t.html ).
Unless there simply were never any 68060 acceleracers for the Mac
Well, were there? I never heard of any, but I may be wrong. It seems quite plausible that there weren't any, as Apple had switched to PowerPC by then.
Terrorism is the most obvious reason for ID cards
That isn't obvious at all. How will that work?
I've sat on a train in Sweden listening to two people talk about how it's easier to get 'unofficial' jobs in the UK because 'you don't need any papers'.
If UK employers employee people without asking for ID, how on earth will that change with ID cards? Those employers could ask for ID now if they want to. The problem is with employers wanting to hire people without worrying about if they are immigrants or not; the problem is not to do with ID cards.
Even stranger, I've gone to a NHS hospital in the UK and got very expensive medical treatment without showing any ID at all, whereas both Sweden and Germany demand at least some paperwork.
Perhaps because doctors believe in treating humans, rather than deciding that only some "deserve" it.
In Sweden, there is no way to do anything, even renting a video tape unless you have a personal number, and that is tied to you registering for tax, but I could survive quite happily in the UK without notifying the authorities at all. I suspect that the UK pays a fairly heavy price for this.
OMG, those evil immigrants renting video tapes!!! How will we survive!!!
If you are really so keep to stop unauthorised people renting video tapes, then please, send me £90; you can pay for mine, if you believe so strongly in it.
so it's possible that ID cards may catch a few potential terrorists too.
No, it's not.
People who oppose the cards seem to frequently be afraid that some type of shameful behavior will be revealed. That is not a compelling argument to people who don't engage in shameful behavior.
People with a private life tend not to be ashamed of it - the problem is that other people like you think it is shameful.
Unsurprisingly, people do not want their privacy revealed to people who will call it shameful; the very tone of your post demonstrates why privacy should be preserved.
my country it is only a piece of plastic with photo, name, adress etc.
You answer your own question: many of the proposed ID card schemes (e.g., the UK's) are not simply "pieces of plastic".
Why yes of course, here in Belgium as in France, Slovakia, Switzerland and all other Nation-ID-card-toting countries, we have a special police force going through everyone's trash at 4am just in case someone cut up their ID and threw it away... in which case you're thrown straight into jail! No questions asked! Yes-siree
But in the UK at least, this will be a crime, punishable by up to 51 weeks in prison. This is a fact, not some paranoid fear. Yes, they may not find out by going through your trash, but if they find out you are or were without ID (e.g., they ask for it, or you decide to get some new ID in future), then you are guilty.
Yes, you were joking, but passports / ID cards can get mistakingly thrown away / lost / destroyed. In France when that happens, you just go to a local police station, tell them you lost your wallet (or whatever) and they make you fill in a form saying "I [insert ANY NAME YOU WANT] have lost my ID. I declare that I live [INSERT ANY ADDRESS]" it's officialy stamped and you get to keep a copy, it's valid 3 months or so but isn't considered official in any way of course. It just means that you declared you lost your stuff and that's why you don't have ID on you. For example I used this when I signed up late for university. I didn't have an excuse so quickly went and got one of these forms and managed to enroll.
How easy is it to get the proper replacement ID, if that's only temporary?
In the UK, getting a replacement passport is a huge hassle, requiring people to declare who you are, and an additional cost. The ID card is tied to the passport, but will be even more of a hassle, requiring biometrics and interviews, and even more cost (£90+). There will be no simple form to fill out at your local police station - having a card lost or damaged will involve significant personal time and cost.
The problem here is that not all ID card schemes are the same. Few people have a problem with "card with your name and photo on that you are given, and you can throw away if you like" - the objections are to all the other things being proposed with them. But people hear "ID card" and mistakenly just think it's a piece of plastic with your name on it.
That's an argument for a voluntary card.
The objections are not to having a new form of ID available, but to making it compulsory, to the accompanying database which Governments want to sneak into many of the proposed ID card schemes, and to the introduction of a new set of crimes, criminalising people for not following every rule associated with the card.
Oh, and most "ID theft" won't be helped at all by an ID card - e.g., how's that going to work when someone steals your debit card?
There are plenty of examples of how Governments and police have misused additional circumstanstial evidence, without relying on actual evidence - for example, http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,1 6132,1575532,00.html . In particular, "The officer explains what made them change their mind and arrest me. Apparently, on August 4, 2004, there was a firearms incident at the company where I work. The next day I find out that there had been a hoax call the previous year, apparently from a temp claiming there was an armed intruder. Some staff had also been seen photographing tube stations with a camera phone. On June 2, as part of a team-building exercise, new colleagues were supposed to photograph landmarks and try to get a picture of themselves with a policeman." With these sorts of abuses, I do not like the idea of more information being held in databases that police can mine, and use to arrest innocent people.
As for other loss of rights - with the UK's card, you will use your freedom (i.e., go to prison) if you fail to sign up for the scheme (requiring interview, fingerprinting and personal cost of £90+), and also if you fail to notify the authorities if your card is ever lost, stolen or merely damaged.
Your turn: tell us what known benefits these cards bring. Actual examples with evidence, not hypothetical claims.
Even if by some miracle you are right, and an ID card supposedly saves money, can you tell me why the UK Government will require me to fork out £90+ for the card? Surely, if what you say was correct, they should be paying me if anything?
Furthermore, welfare isn't just about who's entitled to it - everyone benefits from it. In particular (b) An immigrant with a disease can infect non-immigrants; (c) I'm not sure why a child should have no right to education because of who his parents are - but letting children grow up uneducated will just leave the problem later on of uneducated adults who may now need welfare; (d) I'm really not sure what you are saying - if a criminal commits a crime, then he needs to be caught whoever the victim was!
Protest the law, not the enforcement ability. If you're willing to accept a law then you should be willing to accept that every infraction will result in punishement.
Who says we accept the bad laws?
Protesting the laws is fine in theory, but in practice it's hard to overturn many different laws that already exist, but easier to prevent a single new system that would make enforcing such laws easier (not to mention that we can do both - protest the law and the new systems).
Put it this way: If we lived in some happy fantasy land where the were no "bad laws" (e.g., the Government kept its nose out of what consenting adults did in private), and we could be guaranteed that no such laws would ever be implemented in future, then fine. But in the real world, I'll protest anything that makes it easier to invade people's privacy and enforce such laws.
living in Belgium were having your ID card on you all the time is mandatory, let me say this. It's better than having no ID at all. There are many situation where having an official ID card to prove who you are is very pratical, like when I go to the bank to open an account, when I buy a house,
I may be missing your point, but can you explain why you cannot choose yourself to carry one, if it's such a good idea? Does the Government need to make it compulsory for you, because you can't make that decision?
when the police stop me I produce my ID and don't have to go down to the station to prove who I am
And this just shows how much effect having ID cards has had on you. In countries without ID cards, generally police can't randomly take you to the police station in the first place to demand who you are, unless they have reason to arrest you.
But introducing ID cards changes that, as you admit: now police can demand your papers, and if you forget to have them on you, you have to accompany them to the station (not to mention the possibility of automatically being guilty of a crime for not carrying it).
My understanding is that Australia does have a reasonable health & welfare system, so thats a big carrot (stick?) to wave. But it's still not compulsory.
In other news, Australia announced that following laws was no longer compulsory. You can always choose to go to prison instead. Freedom is a pretty big carrot to wave, but it's still not compulsory.
Before this gets too far into a US vs Europe debate, it should be pointed out that the UK does not currently have ID cards, and that many people oppose the Government's current plans to introduce such a scheme.