On May 30, 2010, at 2:28 PM, P. J. Alling wrote: > On 5/30/2010 7:49 AM, paul stenquist wrote: >> On May 30, 2010, at 6:50 AM, Bob W wrote: >> >> >>>> Bob, with all due respect to you and Larry I understood him rather >>>> differently. He indicated, to the best of my understanding, that there are >>>> entirely different projects that are more worthy of spending the money on. >>>> Therefore, as far I understood his logic, this very project did not >>>> deserve real attention. My opinion is pretty much opposite of his. >>>> >>> well frankly it doesn't deserve spending money on, unless individual car >>> owners choose to spend their own money on it. >>> >>> It's the parents' responsibility to look after their own children, not the >>> responsibility of other people. If parents can't look after their own >>> children properly we already have methods for dealing with it. >>> >>> If you're worried about leaving your children in the back of the car, go >>> ahead and buy a warning device but don't expect me to pay for it. >>> >>> >> Of course your argument can be extended. You've already paid for the airbags >> and seat bels in his car so that he'll be protected in case he hits >> something. And you've paid for that buzzer that tells him his lights are on, >> in case he forgets to shut them off. In fact, there are numerous devices in >> cars, many of them mandated by regulation, that we all pay for. But in the >> end we don't really pay in full. Implementation of new technology creates >> jobs. Jobs generate revenue that goes back to the population. >> > > That's the same arguement that if someone throws a brick through a shop > window, it's a good thing. After all think of all the money spent to repair > the window. But what would the money be spent on if the window didn't have > to be replaced. What if it were invested wouldn't that create jobs too? > I'll answer for you. Yes it would. What if it were spent on cheep booze and > cigarettes, wouldn't that also create jobs? Well, yes it would. This is the > most foolish of reasons to do this.
I didn't say that the fact that much of the cost goes back into the economy is a reason to do this. I just pointed out, correctly, that the cost per device times the number of cars isn't the true cost to society. And I'm not necessarily in favor of regulation. Never have been. But I'm in favor of truth and accuracy. Paul > It's not like we're creating a new technology, all we're doing is forcing > people to buy a product they don't need and don't want. > > The buzzer is annoying, if you leave your lights on, you'll drain your > battery, and need a jump start, that buzzer takes jobs away from service > stations and work away from tow truck drivers. They should be illegal! > >> >>> Bob >>> >>> >>> -- >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> PDML@pdml.net >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >>> follow the directions. >>> >> >> > > > -- > {\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Courier > New;}} > \viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 I've just upgraded to Thunderbird 3.0 and the > interface subtly weird.\par > } > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
