The US Code clearly defines the militia, and it's basically everyone who's not in the regular military,...All it means is that one side is unwilling to accept the inarguable definition of "militia" according to the US Code
There was no US [Legal] Code when the Constitution was written. It includes a later-day interpretation of what a miliita is and is not. The Constitution is what it is, and says what it says, and your argument that all these later interpretations solidify what it says after the fact is wrong. That's circular logic. You read these later documents and say, "Ah, THAT explains exactly what the Constitution says, so see, there is no interpretation to be done." - but of course what you have done is interpret.
Not wrong. Read the Federalist Papers Well, yes I could and they are interesting documents, but once again they were written AFTER the Constitution and they were newspaper articles, not official government documents or even law, and certainly not amendments to the Constitution. Again you use after-the-fact interpretation to justify your contention that the wording is absolute [in favor of your opinion]. Individuals can use the Federalist Papers to interpret what the Constitution means, but others can use them to come to different and equally correct conclusions. That's hardly unequivocal.
Look, I'm not saying you (we) don't have the right to bear arms, I'm saying that it is not unequivocal. There are other interpretations of that section that reasonably argue that there are limits to those rights.
If that sentence in the Constitution is so clear and plain as you say, and if it is as you interpret it, then why is it that you can't have your own private army? Your interpretation that both private armies (militias) and unrestricted rights to own guns are included in that one sentence doesn't hold up to reality. Again, hardly unequivocal.
If it is so closed to interpretation why is it that you cannot strap on a gun and walk around most cities in most states? Doesn't that infringe on your right to bear your arms? Why can't you carry a gun on an airplane? Doesn't that infringe on your right to bear arms? See, it is not an unequivocal right after all.
"Amendment II A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Unequivocal. You have the right to keep and bear arms and that right shall not be infringed upon." --- Unequivocal, huh? Except you LEFT OUT part of the amendment: "the right of the people to keep and bear arm in an organized militia being..."
Hmmm, maybe not so unequivocal after all.
Your other "interpretations" of the Constitution are of the same general self-serving quality. Good thing people don;t go to/. for their constitutional law info.
...does anybody know the etymology of the word "patriot" with respect to this legislation? Whose idea was it to use "patriot" and why? It seems like the worst/most transparent type of label possible for such a group of laws that seek to strip away personal freedoms and rights to privacy.
These titles are chosen carefully to maximize support for certain bills. For example the "USA Patriot Act" should really have been called the "USA Internal Security and Surveillance Act", but who would vote for that?
The "No Child Left Behind Act" was so named because who could be for leaving children behind? It would probably not have passed had it been named the Nationalized Education Testing Act - a more accurate name.
Also, who could ever be against clean air? However, the so-called Clear Skies Initiative would have been much harder to pass had it been named the "Chemical and Power Industry Air-Pollution Exemption Act".
These warm and fuzzy names also allow Fox News to constantly utter "Patroit, patriot, patriot, clear skies, clear skies, no child left behind, no child left behind" which has the effect of increasing popular support for these bills as well as the administration that spawned them. Most Americans never give a thought to what bills actually do - they just know they are patriots, clear skies are good, and no child should be left behind.
"I have not met with the [XM] chair or the CEO, so I have no idea where this has come from," he said during his firm's Wednesday morning (1/26) earnings conference call.
What he actually said was that he has not met with the XM CEO, which says absolutely nothing about any merger or merger talks since their lawyers may be meeting. It also simply says he doesn't know what the source of the leak was. Again, this does NOT say anything about a merger, pro or con, just that he doesn't know who let the information out.
I'm not saying there is or isn't a merger negtiation in the works, just that this so-called denial is really no denial at all. Given that it would have been very easy to simply say "There is no merger planned", but instead we got this convoluted non-denial, I tend to think they ARE talking merger.
My decision was made in 2000. When Bush won the 2000 election, I knew I'd be voting for him again in 2004.
That statement alone indicates you are not competent or qualified to make intelligent political commentary. For all you knew Bush would break every campaign promise he ever made about honesty, openness and integrity in his administration, create a police state with secret imprisonments, cancel habeus corpus, approve the use of torture, invade a country under false pretenses, driven the US into a half a trillion dollar debt, begun the dismantling of social security, politicize the civil service, appoint incompetents throughout his cabinet, and preside over the worst four years of the stock market since the Great Depression, and then STILL wouldn't be able to think of a single thing he did wrong in the previous four years. But, oh boy, you knew you'd vote for him in 2004 when he won in 2000.
Its knee jerk reality-challenged people like you that just make me shake my head in wonder.
Secondly, sure, Roddenberry deserves credit for his casting choices, but let's be honest here, we were talking 1966, not 1866, it was an accomplishment but not an unheralded one. By this time the country was well past the bland, white picket world of the 50's.
Not true at all. Even commercials were lily white in 1966. NO U.S. tv show in 1966 had blacks or any other minority presented as just people doing their jobs. They were always black people, or asian people, or hispanic people. I was there, I watched it, I know.
Joking aside, it is an old enough program that it was named before the Republican PR machine took power and began naming things euphemistically (i.e. USA Patriot Act, Clear Skies Inititiative, No Child Left Behind, Tort Reform, etc.) After all, who isn't a patrot, who wants to see children left behind, who wants dirty skies, and who doesn;t want to stick it to lawyers? Of course that isn't what any of these programs actually do, but that's the point.
In reality these programs should be named the US Internal Security and Surveillance Act, New Source Review Cancellation Act, Federal Nationalized Educational Testing and Funding Act, and Protect the Corporations Act.
Your example is extreme and unrealistic. I imaging they would buy a $20-30 item and put a $10 sticker on it. That's a lot of profit without much risk. Even the most asleep cashier would notice a $10 plasma TV.
Re:More Thoughts on Cars and Society
on
Time Sharing Cars
·
· Score: 1
I can't imagine how difficult it would be if I were someone on a limited income trying to hold down a job without a car. Public transportation doesn't go into the suburbs, where the money and jobs are, so I'd be confined to one small area for everything, or paying out the ass for taxis to haul me to and from work.
That is a definate problem for people trying to get ahead in our society. There is a service in Durham, NC that supplies free cars to people who need them. They take donated cars, fix them up and give them to people who need them. I suppose there is screening of some sort to avoid abuse, but it is a real help to people who need a car to work or get a better job but can't afford one. I don;t know what the new tax rules will do to the service since the donors are no longer able claim a deduction of the full book value of cars donated. After December 31st the new rules only allow donors to deduct what the charities actually get for selling a donated car, and this charity gives them away for free...
I hate pollution more than the next guy, but you are wrong. It does not matter if you got 60 mog from being a hybrid or being an efficent regular gas car you produce the same amount of pollution.
Actually, that is not the case. The hybrid car will produce significantly less pollution than a conventional car even when they get the exact same MPG. This is because a conventional engine has to operate at many different speeds and loading to get the car moving and regulate its speed - a very inefficient way to do things as well as producing high emissions at low and high RPMs and at high loading. A hybrid engine runs constantly at its most efficient speed to charge batteries.
Nope, this doesn't defeat the argument, because when the charge drops below a certain threshhold, the gas engine kicks in to charge them no matter what---independent of whether or not the car is stopped
Yes, it does defeat the argument. If the battery gets more charge due to regenerative braking, then it takes longer for it to reach the point where the engine has to start to charge it - hence better gas mileage.
For marketing purposes, the manufacturers lead the public to believe that they derive part of their energy from combustion of petrol and part "from electricity", which is meaningless but impressive to the average consumer, who doesn't stop to ask why, if that is so, he is not having to charge up his car every night.
What do you mean 'so-called hybrids' - they ARE hybrids, period.
Although i get the point you are trying to make, your logic does not seem exactly right to me. Using your logic it would be meaningless to differentiate between energy derived from oil, gas, wind, hydro or solar because all have their origins with the sun (yes, hydro is solar-driven, too). Of course that would be a silly and artificial position to take. Your contention that it is meaningless to differentiate between energy sources in a hybrid car because they both originate with fossil-fuel is just as artificial a position. (Plus it's wrong - see paragraph below)
In the hybrid car, part of the energy in the storage batteries is derived from conversion of kinetic energy to electrical energy through the braking system, not from the generator on the gas engine. This energy is NOT fossil-fuel derived, so therefore you cannot say that all the energy used to power the car comes from gasoline. Before you say it - no, the energy recovered isn't necessarily the 'same' dino energy that was expended to get the car to speed in the first place. You can add 100% non-dino energy to the batteries just by braking down a long incline - thereby charging your batteries a bit by using the force of gravity. If that isn't a hybrid energy storage system, what is?
Just the same as your rude and obscene request that I should do what you want. You see, you can't legislate good behavior. You can't stop people from being assholes.
You are a perfect example. You are the one who started with the obscene descriptions of others just because they did not want you to disturb them, but how quickly YOU become the offended one when someone else does it. In your world everything seems to revolve right back to you. Others are at fault simply because they object to YOUR rudeness - whether it is me in slashdot using the word "fuck", or others in a theater objecting to your cellphone. Fortunatly the world where you are the perfect privileged prince does not exist for the rest of us.
And the military built the Alsaka Highway, dredges harbors, and more. The military developed jet engines, but thee same assembly lines that make militray engines also make civilian jet engines. Just because something was paid for by military funds does not mean that is does not belong to the citizens of the country. The analogy that an individual's inability to take a jet fighter for a flight somehow means that everything the military does is prohibited from use by civilians is false logic. This is particualry true of the GPS system since funding for the project was approved by Congress based on the promise by the military that there would be extensive civilian use of it. In fact for years there were two GPS versions, the military system being more accurate than the civilian version although they all used the same satellites.
There is also the precedent that they have allowed and encouraged civilian use of the system. It is a common tennant of law that even if you own the road that you built, you actaully give up the right to restrict its use if you have allowed your neighbor or the public to use it freely for a long period of time.
After a rude and obscene list of rules for everyone else (you conveniently get to do whatever you want to do) you SHOUT at them to take a chill pill. You probably don't even see the irony.
As for your munchkins, I couldn't care less about them, and I DO want to see my precious movie that I paid for without listening to updates from your sitter. If you are so caring and worried about them then STAY THE FUCK HOME.
Oh yeah, right. And this little bit of propoganda was published by the AWEA, aka American Wind Energy Association - an industry trade group. The reliability of this "data" ranks right up there with "clean coal" and "no evidence that smoking causes cancer" data put out by other industry trade groups and their so-called objective look at the facts.
Actually, I think you are both right. It is just that the Japanese culture ALLOWS beauty (read "cute") and violence to coexist with little stigma for either. This appreciation for the utility of both is simply not possible in US cutlure at this time.
Historically, the samurai were as interested in beauty as in the martial arts; while in the US beauty (and the appreciation of it) has traditionally been associated almost entirely with feminity, and violence almost entirely with masculinity - a stupid and culturally limiting viewpoint in my opinion.
..and electricity, and antibiotics, and recombinant DNA, and desktop publishing?
Don't think that anything technological is good or results in good things. What about mustard gas, global warming, spam, etc.
RFID *WILL* be used by the government to track, control and monitor citizens - RFID technology is just too tempting for them not to use it.
Here is just one scenario: The Feds park a van on a busy street and read all the RFID tags of people walking by. If they just slip a known tag on a "person of interest" they can correlate all the Eddie Bauer and Wal-Mart tags on his clothing. Thereafter they don;t need the known tag anymore - they can ID the person wherever he goes by his clothing tags. Any tag that has been read "infects" any new tag the person gets whenever he walks by a reading station. What's more, if they have several monitoring stations around town they can track citizen's whereabouts with ease (or just put one outside the opposition political party's headquarters to ID all "bad-thinking" citizens). If he walks with another person the other person's tags are associated with the "suspect" so the Feds now know the "known associates", and even the associate's associates.
All the Feds have to do is plant three or four tags in an opposition political rally and they can identify everyone at the rally.
With the amount of computing power the government can muster (think Echelon), the government will be able to easily track the movements and associations of every citizen. Ubiquitous RFID tags are the wet dream of authoritarian governments or of governments who would become authoritarian in the name of religion, power or national security.
What most people don;t realize is that the company that designed and manufactures the Roomba got its start in robots for the defense industry. The US Army is currently employing a shotgun-wielding robot in Iraq right now. Just Google "roomba shotgun robot".
Those Segways better watch who they pick on or Roomba's big brother may come calling with its shotgun.
Slashdot Mirror
The US Code clearly defines the militia, and it's basically everyone who's not in the regular military,...All it means is that one side is unwilling to accept the inarguable definition of "militia" according to the US Code
There was no US [Legal] Code when the Constitution was written. It includes a later-day interpretation of what a miliita is and is not. The Constitution is what it is, and says what it says, and your argument that all these later interpretations solidify what it says after the fact is wrong. That's circular logic. You read these later documents and say, "Ah, THAT explains exactly what the Constitution says, so see, there is no interpretation to be done." - but of course what you have done is interpret.
Not wrong. Read the Federalist Papers
Well, yes I could and they are interesting documents, but once again they were written AFTER the Constitution and they were newspaper articles, not official government documents or even law, and certainly not amendments to the Constitution. Again you use after-the-fact interpretation to justify your contention that the wording is absolute [in favor of your opinion]. Individuals can use the Federalist Papers to interpret what the Constitution means, but others can use them to come to different and equally correct conclusions. That's hardly unequivocal.
Look, I'm not saying you (we) don't have the right to bear arms, I'm saying that it is not unequivocal. There are other interpretations of that section that reasonably argue that there are limits to those rights.
If that sentence in the Constitution is so clear and plain as you say, and if it is as you interpret it, then why is it that you can't have your own private army? Your interpretation that both private armies (militias) and unrestricted rights to own guns are included in that one sentence doesn't hold up to reality. Again, hardly unequivocal.
If it is so closed to interpretation why is it that you cannot strap on a gun and walk around most cities in most states? Doesn't that infringe on your right to bear your arms? Why can't you carry a gun on an airplane? Doesn't that infringe on your right to bear arms? See, it is not an unequivocal right after all.
Wrong. Try actually reading the Constitution.
It says, "An organized militia being necessary..., the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms shall not..."
Its right there in black and white.
And of course that was written back when you had a war your soldiers brought their own guns.
In any event, the fact that we are having this argument means it is anything but "unequivocal".
"Amendment II
/. for their constitutional law info.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Unequivocal. You have the right to keep and bear arms and that right shall not be infringed upon."
---
Unequivocal, huh? Except you LEFT OUT part of the amendment: "the right of the people to keep and bear arm in an organized militia being..."
Hmmm, maybe not so unequivocal after all.
Your other "interpretations" of the Constitution are of the same general self-serving quality. Good thing people don;t go to
...does anybody know the etymology of the word "patriot" with respect to this legislation? Whose idea was it to use "patriot" and why? It seems like the worst/most transparent type of label possible for such a group of laws that seek to strip away personal freedoms and rights to privacy.
These titles are chosen carefully to maximize support for certain bills. For example the "USA Patriot Act" should really have been called the "USA Internal Security and Surveillance Act", but who would vote for that?
The "No Child Left Behind Act" was so named because who could be for leaving children behind? It would probably not have passed had it been named the Nationalized Education Testing Act - a more accurate name.
Also, who could ever be against clean air? However, the so-called Clear Skies Initiative would have been much harder to pass had it been named the "Chemical and Power Industry Air-Pollution Exemption Act".
These warm and fuzzy names also allow Fox News to constantly utter "Patroit, patriot, patriot, clear skies, clear skies, no child left behind, no child left behind" which has the effect of increasing popular support for these bills as well as the administration that spawned them. Most Americans never give a thought to what bills actually do - they just know they are patriots, clear skies are good, and no child should be left behind.
And you believe him? Read his quote carefully...
"I have not met with the [XM] chair or the CEO, so I have no idea where this has come from," he said during his firm's Wednesday morning (1/26) earnings conference call.
What he actually said was that he has not met with the XM CEO, which says absolutely nothing about any merger or merger talks since their lawyers may be meeting. It also simply says he doesn't know what the source of the leak was. Again, this does NOT say anything about a merger, pro or con, just that he doesn't know who let the information out.
I'm not saying there is or isn't a merger negtiation in the works, just that this so-called denial is really no denial at all. Given that it would have been very easy to simply say "There is no merger planned", but instead we got this convoluted non-denial, I tend to think they ARE talking merger.
My decision was made in 2000. When Bush won the 2000 election, I knew I'd be voting for him again in 2004.
That statement alone indicates you are not competent or qualified to make intelligent political commentary. For all you knew Bush would break every campaign promise he ever made about honesty, openness and integrity in his administration, create a police state with secret imprisonments, cancel habeus corpus, approve the use of torture, invade a country under false pretenses, driven the US into a half a trillion dollar debt, begun the dismantling of social security, politicize the civil service, appoint incompetents throughout his cabinet, and preside over the worst four years of the stock market since the Great Depression, and then STILL wouldn't be able to think of a single thing he did wrong in the previous four years. But, oh boy, you knew you'd vote for him in 2004 when he won in 2000.
Its knee jerk reality-challenged people like you that just make me shake my head in wonder.
Secondly, sure, Roddenberry deserves credit for his casting choices, but let's be honest here, we were talking 1966, not 1866, it was an accomplishment but not an unheralded one. By this time the country was well past the bland, white picket world of the 50's.
Not true at all. Even commercials were lily white in 1966. NO U.S. tv show in 1966 had blacks or any other minority presented as just people doing their jobs. They were always black people, or asian people, or hispanic people. I was there, I watched it, I know.
Joking aside, it is an old enough program that it was named before the Republican PR machine took power and began naming things euphemistically (i.e. USA Patriot Act, Clear Skies Inititiative, No Child Left Behind, Tort Reform, etc.) After all, who isn't a patrot, who wants to see children left behind, who wants dirty skies, and who doesn;t want to stick it to lawyers? Of course that isn't what any of these programs actually do, but that's the point.
In reality these programs should be named the US Internal Security and Surveillance Act, New Source Review Cancellation Act, Federal Nationalized Educational Testing and Funding Act, and Protect the Corporations Act.
Your example is extreme and unrealistic. I imaging they would buy a $20-30 item and put a $10 sticker on it. That's a lot of profit without much risk. Even the most asleep cashier would notice a $10 plasma TV.
I can't imagine how difficult it would be if I were someone on a limited income trying to hold down a job without a car. Public transportation doesn't go into the suburbs, where the money and jobs are, so I'd be confined to one small area for everything, or paying out the ass for taxis to haul me to and from work.
That is a definate problem for people trying to get ahead in our society. There is a service in Durham, NC that supplies free cars to people who need them. They take donated cars, fix them up and give them to people who need them. I suppose there is screening of some sort to avoid abuse, but it is a real help to people who need a car to work or get a better job but can't afford one. I don;t know what the new tax rules will do to the service since the donors are no longer able claim a deduction of the full book value of cars donated. After December 31st the new rules only allow donors to deduct what the charities actually get for selling a donated car, and this charity gives them away for free...
Already done my friend... Corvette with 6.2L diesel engine claimed to be getting 48 mpg.
http://www.thedieselpage.com/readers/vet.htm
The scheme does indeed have drawbacks - like requiring a turbo/super-charger.
Where did you ever get the idea that diesel engines require turbochargers?
I hate pollution more than the next guy, but you are wrong. It does not matter if you got 60 mog from being a hybrid or being an efficent regular gas car you produce the same amount of pollution.
Actually, that is not the case. The hybrid car will produce significantly less pollution than a conventional car even when they get the exact same MPG. This is because a conventional engine has to operate at many different speeds and loading to get the car moving and regulate its speed - a very inefficient way to do things as well as producing high emissions at low and high RPMs and at high loading. A hybrid engine runs constantly at its most efficient speed to charge batteries.
Nope, this doesn't defeat the argument, because when the charge drops below a certain threshhold, the gas engine kicks in to charge them no matter what---independent of whether or not the car is stopped
Yes, it does defeat the argument. If the battery gets more charge due to regenerative braking, then it takes longer for it to reach the point where the engine has to start to charge it - hence better gas mileage.
For marketing purposes, the manufacturers lead the public to believe that they derive part of their energy from combustion of petrol and part "from electricity", which is meaningless but impressive to the average consumer, who doesn't stop to ask why, if that is so, he is not having to charge up his car every night.
What do you mean 'so-called hybrids' - they ARE hybrids, period.
Although i get the point you are trying to make, your logic does not seem exactly right to me. Using your logic it would be meaningless to differentiate between energy derived from oil, gas, wind, hydro or solar because all have their origins with the sun (yes, hydro is solar-driven, too). Of course that would be a silly and artificial position to take. Your contention that it is meaningless to differentiate between energy sources in a hybrid car because they both originate with fossil-fuel is just as artificial a position. (Plus it's wrong - see paragraph below)
In the hybrid car, part of the energy in the storage batteries is derived from conversion of kinetic energy to electrical energy through the braking system, not from the generator on the gas engine. This energy is NOT fossil-fuel derived, so therefore you cannot say that all the energy used to power the car comes from gasoline. Before you say it - no, the energy recovered isn't necessarily the 'same' dino energy that was expended to get the car to speed in the first place. You can add 100% non-dino energy to the batteries just by braking down a long incline - thereby charging your batteries a bit by using the force of gravity. If that isn't a hybrid energy storage system, what is?
Just the same as your rude and obscene request that I should do what you want. You see, you can't legislate good behavior. You can't stop people from being assholes.
You are a perfect example. You are the one who started with the obscene descriptions of others just because they did not want you to disturb them, but how quickly YOU become the offended one when someone else does it. In your world everything seems to revolve right back to you. Others are at fault simply because they object to YOUR rudeness - whether it is me in slashdot using the word "fuck", or others in a theater objecting to your cellphone. Fortunatly the world where you are the perfect privileged prince does not exist for the rest of us.
"I thought Claudia Black's character was too much like Aeryn, but perhaps that's just because she's a really poor actor? ;)"
If she were a really poor actor they would have made her a character on Stargate Atlantis.
And the military built the Alsaka Highway, dredges harbors, and more. The military developed jet engines, but thee same assembly lines that make militray engines also make civilian jet engines. Just because something was paid for by military funds does not mean that is does not belong to the citizens of the country. The analogy that an individual's inability to take a jet fighter for a flight somehow means that everything the military does is prohibited from use by civilians is false logic. This is particualry true of the GPS system since funding for the project was approved by Congress based on the promise by the military that there would be extensive civilian use of it. In fact for years there were two GPS versions, the military system being more accurate than the civilian version although they all used the same satellites.
There is also the precedent that they have allowed and encouraged civilian use of the system. It is a common tennant of law that even if you own the road that you built, you actaully give up the right to restrict its use if you have allowed your neighbor or the public to use it freely for a long period of time.
Lastly for everyone, TAKE A FRICKIN CHILL PILL!
After a rude and obscene list of rules for everyone else (you conveniently get to do whatever you want to do) you SHOUT at them to take a chill pill. You probably don't even see the irony.
As for your munchkins, I couldn't care less about them, and I DO want to see my precious movie that I paid for without listening to updates from your sitter. If you are so caring and worried about them then STAY THE FUCK HOME.
Lets dispel that "bird killer" [awea.org] myth once again with some actual numbers.
So what you are saying is: "Wind tubines don't kill birds, birds kill birds by flying into wind turbines"?
Oh yeah, right. And this little bit of propoganda was published by the AWEA, aka American Wind Energy Association - an industry trade group. The reliability of this "data" ranks right up there with "clean coal" and "no evidence that smoking causes cancer" data put out by other industry trade groups and their so-called objective look at the facts.
Actually, I think you are both right. It is just that the Japanese culture ALLOWS beauty (read "cute") and violence to coexist with little stigma for either. This appreciation for the utility of both is simply not possible in US cutlure at this time.
Historically, the samurai were as interested in beauty as in the martial arts; while in the US beauty (and the appreciation of it) has traditionally been associated almost entirely with feminity, and violence almost entirely with masculinity - a stupid and culturally limiting viewpoint in my opinion.
Try Weather Watcher, found at www.SingersCreations.com
no spyware, no popups, no ads, no cost. Just desktop weather.
..and electricity, and antibiotics, and recombinant DNA, and desktop publishing?
Don't think that anything technological is good or results in good things. What about mustard gas, global warming, spam, etc.
RFID *WILL* be used by the government to track, control and monitor citizens - RFID technology is just too tempting for them not to use it.
Here is just one scenario:
The Feds park a van on a busy street and read all the RFID tags of people walking by. If they just slip a known tag on a "person of interest" they can correlate all the Eddie Bauer and Wal-Mart tags on his clothing. Thereafter they don;t need the known tag anymore - they can ID the person wherever he goes by his clothing tags. Any tag that has been read "infects" any new tag the person gets whenever he walks by a reading station. What's more, if they have several monitoring stations around town they can track citizen's whereabouts with ease (or just put one outside the opposition political party's headquarters to ID all "bad-thinking" citizens). If he walks with another person the other person's tags are associated with the "suspect" so the Feds now know the "known associates", and even the associate's associates.
All the Feds have to do is plant three or four tags in an opposition political rally and they can identify everyone at the rally.
With the amount of computing power the government can muster (think Echelon), the government will be able to easily track the movements and associations of every citizen. Ubiquitous RFID tags are the wet dream of authoritarian governments or of governments who would become authoritarian in the name of religion, power or national security.
What most people don;t realize is that the company that designed and manufactures the Roomba got its start in robots for the defense industry. The US Army is currently employing a shotgun-wielding robot in Iraq right now. Just Google "roomba shotgun robot".
Those Segways better watch who they pick on or Roomba's big brother may come calling with its shotgun.