On 5/8/2011 12:02, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Well, it has to be something issued by the state, too.  You can't create
> an ID as well - the ID has to be created and verified by a trusted
> authority.

You're still conflating accidental identification with the purpose of 
looking at the ID in the first place.

I don't need ID to prove I'm old enough to buy alcohol. Nobody cares who I 
am. I don't get carded at all, because simply showing my face is enough to 
prove I'm old enough.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On 08/05/2011 8:31 PM, Darren New wrote:
> I don't need ID to prove I'm old enough to buy alcohol. Nobody cares who
> I am. I don't get carded at all, because simply showing my face is
> enough to prove I'm old enough.

Quote from the Daily Mail.

"Grandmother Tina MacNaughton-Jones, 47,  refused a bottle of wine in a 
Waitrose supermarket in Worthing, West Sussex - because she could not 
prove she was over 18. Her 22-year-old daughter then produced a driver's 
licence to buy the bottle but she, too, was turned down over fears that 
she would pass the alcohol on to her mother"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1247925/Girl-told-ID-buy-QUICHE-Tesco-looked-21.html


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 5/8/2011 12:45, Stephen wrote:
> Quote from the Daily Mail.

You're quoting a british tabloid that doesn't get respect even in Britian, 
about a topic where we're specifically talking about the USA?

Plus, it's a news story. It would be like quoting a news story about a 
motorcycle hitting a semi and killing the semi driver without hurting the 
cyclist to prove that cycles are safer than trucks. The reason it's in the 
paper is that it's such an absurd situation, so illogical and ridiculous to 
everyone who reads it that it's amusing.

>
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1247925/Girl-told-ID-buy-QUICHE-Tesco-looked-21.html

Plus that link doesn't go with your quote, but the linked article proves my 
point even more. She got carded for quiche, which is equally absurd. :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On 08/05/2011 9:08 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 5/8/2011 12:45, Stephen wrote:
>> Quote from the Daily Mail.
>
> You're quoting a british tabloid that doesn't get respect even in
> Britian, about a topic where we're specifically talking about the USA?
>
> Plus, it's a news story. It would be like quoting a news story about a
> motorcycle hitting a semi and killing the semi driver without hurting
> the cyclist to prove that cycles are safer than trucks. The reason it's
> in the paper is that it's such an absurd situation, so illogical and
> ridiculous to everyone who reads it that it's amusing.
>
>>
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1247925/Girl-told-ID-buy-QUICHE-Tesco-looked-21.html
>>
>
> Plus that link doesn't go with your quote, but the linked article proves
> my point even more. She got carded for quiche, which is equally absurd. :-)
>

Or I could be making a comment about your face not being enough to, what 
did you say”, not get you carded.



-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 5/7/2011 4:42 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 5/7/2011 14:08, Warp wrote:
>> I lived many years without any unexpired official identification
>> document.
>
> In the USA it's kind of interesting. Most places that need ID need "a
> government-issued ID." Most people use a driver's license; but remember
> that we have at least 50 different kinds of drivers licenses, because
> driving rules are state rules, not federal rules.
Ironically, some states are doing things like the digital bar strip on 
the back, which makes carding someone easier in a store (Arizona is 
using a test system in Safeway for that now), and it is easier to law 
enforcement to run a card with that too. The ironic part being that the 
wackos and loonies have argued against an official federal ID for 
decades, but the transition to magnetic strips on the cards may just 
result in uniformity of the system, thereby producing one anyway. Mind, 
it will take about 4 seconds, once its universal, for some idiot pencil 
pusher to argue that its not valid as a country wide ID in some obscure 
case, anyway.

> People in the military
> often use their military ID. And there's passports, but surprisingly few
> people actually have a passport. (I heard that less than half the people
> in *Congress* have a passport.) Of course, you need a passport to get
> back into the country if you leave(*), so that means most people making
> our laws have never even vacationed in a different country.
>
Actually, now you can't even get out without a passport, as I understand it.

> "Social security" is basically a federal tax. It started out being
> *just* government guaranteed retirement benefits. Now, of course, the ID
> number is used for pretty much every financial identification, in spite
> of originally being guaranteed to only be used for social security.
>
And, of course, because of this, people can steal it from you, and get 
the benefits, assuming someone isn't paying attention in the fed, or you 
drop off the grid, while they keep using it.

> Other than that, there's very little need to have an "ID" as such. We
> don't even require IDs for voting. (Primarily because we had slaves for
> much longer than most modern civilized countries, and when the slaves
> got freed, none of them had IDs. We also don't have any sorts of tests
> (history, literacy, etc) for voting, for pretty much the same reasons.)
>
Again, this is changing on some states. The real reason is that a lot of 
poor, disinfranchised, and/or non-hard ass, non-drivers, newly arrived 
student, etc. vote Democrat, so once you have busted unions, to cut into 
the funding of Democratic campaigns, you then go after the voters (on 
the claim that vast, but completely unproven, fraud is happening), thus 
requiring that everyone show up with ID as proof of who they are (even 
if they are known by everyone in the damn town, and have lived there for 
50 years). Hell, in one case the even wanted to try to demand that a 
students "parents" be able to show X number of years of residency in the 
state you attend school in, so that you could vote, or you would have to 
wait Y number of years yourself, before you where eligible. Its the 
whole, "You need to take a test first.", all over again, only 
indirectly, so as not to run afoul of the prior law on the subject.

> You need a driver's license to drive. You need a passport to pass ports.
> Of course, you also need a credit card to charge something, a
> prescription to get controlled drugs, etc. But you don't really need ID
> on a normal basis.
>
Again, not always the case. Some states require you prove age, via ID, 
even if you look like you are 90. Its about as non-standard as 
everything else in the US, but you can't buy alcohol in those states, 
even if you where mummified, and had proof of being a 3,000 your old 
dead Egyptian, unless it was a form of verifiable ID, in those states.

Post a reply to this message

On 5/7/2011 7:56 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 07 May 2011 17:23:31 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
>> On 5/7/2011 16:48, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> That's true in some states, but not in Utah.  In Utah they require an
>>> ID, and there's been a lot of discussion about whether or not that
>>> constitutes a poll tax or not.
>>
>> Oh, I forgot to add, you can almost always get a government ID for free,
>> or the government would have a hard time requiring you to have an ID to
>> get various services. E.g., most anywhere you get a driver's license,
>> you can go to get a non-driver ID using the same evidence you use to
>> prove your ID.
>
> Oh, sure - my stepson had a state-issued ID because he hadn't done
> drivers ed.  But I don't think it was free, there still was a cost
> involved.
>
Yeah, its only the SSN that is "free". Everything else they make you pay 
money for, especially if its a photo ID. That is one of the reasons 
people are complaining about it with polls. You are going to *require* 
someone that may have never had a photo ID in their life to *buy* one, 
just to do what they have a right to do anyway? No, if you are going to 
require it, then you damn well better provide one, for free, to those 
that can prove they have right to it, instead of forcing people, 
especially poor people, to pay $20 for the damn thing (which is what one 
costs in Arizona).

Post a reply to this message

On 5/7/2011 2:00 PM, Warp wrote:
> Stephen<mcavoys_at@aoldotcom>  wrote:
>> On 07/05/2011 7:48 PM, Darren New wrote:
>>> I really don't want you in government,
>
>> I don't want them parking outside my house.
>
>    Be careful, or they'll play the victimization card: If someone makes
> even the slightest suggestion that their right to shout their views should
> perhaps be limited in some ways, they will immediately start shouting that
> they are being discriminated against and that there's a nationwide attack
> against christianity.
>
>    (Never mind that if someone dares to make any such public display about
> atheism, they will be outraged. They will be completely oblivious to the
> obvious double standard.)
>
>    Which got me thinking: Many christians in the United States like to
> emphasize how 80 or 90 or whatever percent of the nation consists of
> christians, while at the same time they behave like the vast majority
> consists of godless sinful heathens who need to be evangelized and saved.
> Double-think much?
>
No, about 1% of the country are loud, obnoxious, and constantly whining 
about how 80-90% are Christians, therefor we need to respect their far 
right, Biblical literalist, yet cherry picked, gibberish. If you are 
dumb enough, for one moment, to kiss their ass for this, and show 
respect for it, then you can watch them instantly shift gears and 
declare that 80-90% of people claiming to be Christians are in fact 
godless heathens, who don't follow the Bible properly, and will be left 
behind/burn in hell/have their rights taken away, for their own good/etc.

Not too different than what you said, but its a simple matter of 
personal convenience. If its convenient to accept that most people in 
the US are Christians, for the cause, you do so. When you are talking to 
people who already know this is a completely lie on your part, you can 
feel safe to declare the whole country, other than a few tiny lunatic 
cults, as evil, un-Christian, monsters, only slightly above pond scum, 
or possibly atheists.

There is a lot of double speak, but **absolutely** no double think going 
on there. Its simply political pandering, so that the sheep (i.e., 
moderate Christians) don't realize they are on the list of people to be 
shaved, when the "True Christians (tm)" take over, along with all the 
other heathens and unbelievers.

And, so few of them realize the truth, which is why they keep voting for 
the assholes who hold such views.

It all comes down to a very simple principle among these people, "Its 
acceptable to lie, cheat, steal, or even rape and murder, as long as the 
end result of the glorification of God, and the rise of his true 
religion, over all the false ones. After all, these things are all 
forgiven in the Bible itself, when the chosen people did them. What 
matters is that *our* side wins."

I always find it interesting that the same loonies that think this, and 
usually believe in the end of times, somehow gloss over the fact that 
nearly every single member of the human race is supposed to side with 
Satan in the end. So.. If they ever did manage to convert the whole 
country into a literalist, far right wing, theocracy, ridding the 
country of all the "invalid" Christian faiths, thus making the nuts the 
majority, who would they really be serving, by their own warped logic? 
Not that logic has any part in their gibberish, since its all about 
power, not their supposed god.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 08 May 2011 12:31:30 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 5/8/2011 12:02, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Well, it has to be something issued by the state, too.  You can't
>> create an ID as well - the ID has to be created and verified by a
>> trusted authority.
> 
> You're still conflating accidental identification with the purpose of
> looking at the ID in the first place.
> 
> I don't need ID to prove I'm old enough to buy alcohol. Nobody cares who
> I am. I don't get carded at all, because simply showing my face is
> enough to prove I'm old enough.

Well, no, it's about whether the data matches the identity.  In the cases 
of some individuals (you and me, for example), one look is sufficient to 
make a judgment call.  For others, like my wife, it's not.  If the ID she 
presented was a fake (ie, her identity wasn't assured), then you can bet 
that the fact that it says she's in her 40s would be insufficient.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> On 5/8/2011 9:54, Warp wrote:
> > Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom>  wrote:
> >> My point wasn't that you don't get in without the passport as much as it was
> >> "the purpose of a passport is to get in."
> >
> >    I though the main purpose of passports is to travel abroad. You shouldn't
> > need a passport to get *back* to your own country. (It might be the most
> > *convenient* way, but certainly not a necessity.)

> The visa lets you go somewhere. The passport lets you come back. :-)

  Not all countries require a visa.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

BTW, I thought it was supposed to happen this last saturday but turns 
out it's still 5 days off... :p

Post a reply to this message