AndyMan

It does beg pointing out that not all ARM's are interest only. We're getting a 5 year ARM on our new condo because we'll be moving in 5 years anyways, we don't need the stability of a 30 year fixed. ARM rates tend to be at least a full point cheaper then fixed rates. ARM rates can be 5, 4,3, or 2 years, and can include equity repayment or not. In our case, we're signing up for a 5 year ARM that does include equity payments... _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Hehh... here's one where it seems an unfortunate pilot found himself landing in the middle of WFFC... https://extranet.nasdac.faa.gov/pls/nasdac/STAGE.ASRS_BRIEF_REPORT?RPT_NBR=589781&AC_VAR=TRUE&RPRT_VAR=TRUE&ANMLY_VAR=TRUE&SYN_VAR=TRUE&NARR_VAR=TRUE&NARR_SRCH=skydiving _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

The RFID standard allows for different frequencies. Most implementations of this operate in the public, unlicense spectrum. These often use 125/134.2 KHz, 13.56 MHz, 869 MHZ, 915 MHz,2450 MHz. People might recognize these frequencies. 869 is commonly referred to as "800 meghahertz" 915 is commonly refered to as "900 meghahertz" and 2450 is commonly refered to as "2.5 gigahertz". Anyone shopping for a cordless telephone (cordless, not cellphone) will see the same frequencies. Because of the fact that telephones have batteries and DC power sources, they use these frequencies to get a few hundred feet, or maybe a few thousand feet. You could use RFID with a MUCH higher frequency, like those up in the microwave range, and see the range go through ther roof. I'm sure that's probably whats done with the military systems. The problem with these is that you can't use them for widespread use without an FCC license. The FCC licensing requirement pretty much breaks the idea of these things being used for inventory tracking... Most importantly is that these devices have a problem when there's a lot of them in a small area. They overpower each other. There's an assumption in their development that each sensor will only have one tag in its range. If you have multiple tags, the system breaks down because one tag will "shadow" another - making the second tag invisible. This makes it unlikely to scale up to the level people are worried about. The system just can't handle it. Anyways, the system as available to hospitals, stores, and businesses has a range of only 10 feet. End of story. I have absolutely no doube that the government will some day come up with a system to track people. RFID isn't it. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

I made pork fajitas. Nummy. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Are you making shit up, or can you actually point me to a GPS device, without an external power source, with a working life of > 12 monthes? Because I'm a pretty hardcore geek, and I just can't see how it'd be done. Regardless, Passive RFID most definately has range maxing out at about 10 feet, so I'm not quire sure why this is relevant. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

There's the rub. I tried. Honestly, I can't find anything that backs up your statement, other than articles by some particularly biased organizations. Which is silly anyways, because the real issue is violent crime, not crime in general. Most importantly, that datum needs to be normalized from pretty much everything else going on in that country, like economic changes - a task that's virtually impossible. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Primary sources, please. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Look, don't take my word for it, go look it up. Do some homework. The chips have no power source. They are powered by the incoming radio signal. This limits their range. Of course. But with this system, the receiver tends to be the same device as the transmitter. Think of those magnetically activated door security devices. There's a sensor on the wall, and a card in your wallet. Hold the card up against the sensor and the door opens. The RFID sensor works similarly. The "door sensor" emits an radio refrequency, which when placed in proximity to the chip in your wallet, activates that Chip. The Chip then "bounces" a slightly modified signal back to the sensor. If you wanted to put receivers all over the world, well - I guess you could. It'd be awefully expensive since this system has a range of about 10 feet at most, just like those door magnetic systems. If somebody really wanted to put a receiver every 10 or 15 feet, well - good for them. I think the public would probably figure it out, though. In reality, there really isn't any new technology in RFID chips that doesn't already exist in the magnetic cards, or the "EZ-PASS" toll booth transponders. The only difference is the cost of implementing them. GPS does not work similarly. GPS receivers (in your hand, or on your dashboard) do not beam data back to the satalite. Additionally, GPS devices are powered - either by batteries, solar power, or a DC plug-in. __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

I see. So law abiding citizens SHOULD be allowed to collect large amounts of WMD's. Got it. Not sure I agree. Australia and England have far from done that. The rate of violence in both is nowhere near what it is in the US. I know nothing of podunk towns in GA. This isn't helping, either. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Of course. While technically an RFID it has both, it doesn't really fit into that model and how people perceive it. An RFID chip act more like a rose colored mirror. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

But Ron! You can't have it both ways. If the gun isn't dangerous, then neither is the baseball bat. Nor are ICBM's. Nor are WMD's. I don't see you insisting WMD's aren't dangerous! In fact, I seem to recall you supporting a war based on their suposed existance. To imply that WMD's aren't dangerous is ludicrous. They're designed for a sole purpose - to kill people. Many guns are designed for this very same purpose. BTW - I've yet to advocate banning them. I just don't understand why American's (and largely, only Americans) are so friggin nuts about them. Your arguments aren't helping me here, either... _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

If a satalite were tro transmit with enough power to activate this chip, then have the reflected signal make it all the way back to the satalite, the transmitter on that satalite would have to be of such high power that it'd be effectively microwaving the entire populatio of earth. Lean. Then speak. I'll repeat. RFID chips are inheriently short range. There are FAR better technologies for tracking the movements of individuals. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Great! Lets take all the cop guns off the street, replace them with baseball bats and sulfuric acid! The cops will love it, I'm sure! _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

The RFID standard is quite strict. You need to understand how these chips work. They key thing, is that they don't have a battery, or any other kind of power source. The chips get their power from the radio waves the receptor directs at them. The chips basicallly act as a sort of mirror. They sort of "bounce" radio waves back towards the original source. They accept a radio signal, that signal provides power to the chip, which then modifies the signal before bouncing it back to the receptor. They're not really transmittors, they're not really receivors. The technology is inheriently short range, and this isn't going to change. Honestly, I'm surprised that a hospital would even think of implanting the chips, it doesn't seem like that would be a very good use for these chips. These chips don't last forever, after all, in fact they have a pretty limited lifetime, and the data they store is editable. If a hospital did implant one, odds are that the next time that patient came back to the hospital, the data that was there could either be gone, or otherwise corrupted. I would think that a hospital would put RFID chips on wrist bands that are issued when a patient checks in, and discarded when they check out. The thing with RFID is that they're relatively new, and a lot of people (including industry...) don't understand what they do, and what they don't do. To a degree, I think a lot of privacy advocates are getting upset for no reason. Of course it depends on how they'll be used, but I see these things as no more harmfull than barcodes. I remember it wasn't that long ago the same privacy nuts were going crazy over these, too... _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Of course not. First, I haven't been arguing for regulation. I've only argued two simple points. a: guns are dangerous, and b: they are largely unregulated. I had thought both points would be obvious, but you seem to think otherwise. If a baseball bat is just as "dangerous" (or, effective, or lethal) as a gun, then we can easily take guns away from cops! All they need are clubs! Marvelous! I certainly hope we can all agree, a gun is far more dangerous than a baseball bat! My second point? That guns are relatively unregulated? Well, it seems that if we are talking about regulating them, then it must be the case that they are currently regulated less then they could be. Comparisons to other things (like TNT, radioactive ingredients, many dangerous chemcicals) show that indeed they are relatively unregulated. I'm not sure how, if, or why anyone would try to argue this point... But the gun nuts do seem to insist on it... _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Quit being pendantic. It's annoying. There is a clear difference between things you make yourself, and things you buy off the shelf. Anyone with a good understanding of chemistry (or a lot of luck) can make a bomb. Very few people can buy one. Prisons usually ban knives, but inmates still make "shim's". Should prisons allow uncontrolled use of knives because a few inmate figure out how to make their own? Very few people are capable of making guns. Even though the theoretical knowledge isn't terribly dificult to grasp, I'd wager most people are smart enough not to attempt it themselves, for the same reason most of us don't jump with homemade parachutes. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

It should be noted that the range on RFID chips is at MOST 10 feet. Usually, the range is limited to a few inches, requiring contact or near contact with the scanner. There are far better techniques for tracking the movement of individuals. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

In related news, Slashdot Is carrying a story about how hackers are finding RFID tags to be surprisingly easy to hack. Excerpt: "Lukas Grunwald, a senior consultant with DN-Systems Enterprise Solutions GmbH, is warning retailers that the RFID technology that they are quickly adopting can easily be hacked with the appropriate tools. Grunwald has written a program called RFDump which lets you read and display all metadata within an RFID tag and also modify the user data using a text or hex editor. He wrote this program to demonstrate how consumers can protect themselves by wiping out RFID data after purchasing a product but he acknowledges that it would be trivial to abuse this behavior. What, you might ask, can you do if you hack an RFID tag? Well as the technology is adopted more widely a thief could conceivably mark down the price of an expensive piece of jewelry before paying for it at an automated checkout counter, underage hackers could purchase alcohol or adult movies, and pranksters could simply reprogram the inventory of an entire store by just walking up and down the isles. 'The people who will be using this (shopkeepers) don't know much about technology,' Grunwald warned." _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Well, I'd be jealous of Dukakis, too. Not many civilians get to ride around in a tank. Of course, this picture essentially ended his run for the white house. I think it's clear, and relatively obvious that the Kerry campaign is afraid of exactly the same thing. For good reason, too. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

You left out my option: America's gun supported culture of fear does not make sense to me. Honestly, I'm neither pro-gun, nor anti-gun. Hell, I'll say that not only are they useful tools, they can also be fun toys. Like any tool, there are good sides and bad sides. In this case, the downside can be quite serious. They stand alone in the US among very dangerous tools that are largely unregulated. I just don't get why Americans are so nuts about it. I suspect the pro-gun culture is largely being driven by the manufacturers. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

So, if skydivers have no right to the information, how are they supposed to make educated choices about the levels of risk they undertake? It seems to me, you can't have it both ways. Either the DZ is upfront about risks which the jumpers undertake. or The DZ hides unfortunate news and the jumpers don't understand what they're getting in to. If jumpers are to accept the risks inherient with the sport, then they must be able to collect the required data. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Pretty easy. The first step is to see if you qualify for one of the NAFTA provisions. NAFTA allows people who work in the following professions to get a renewable 2 year visa relatively easily: The definitions of each profession are quite strict. Most require related university degrees. If you don't fit, then you can apply as a skilled worker. Take this short test to see if you qualify: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/skilled/assess/index.html _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

I'm just gonna guess that they have nice sofa's in the inspectors offices... _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Also, the Otter has the aerodynamics of a school bus. The PAC 750 XL weighs in at 3100 lbs, while the Otter is 5,851 - almost twice as heavy. The PAC 750 has half the weight, but carries 80% of the load. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Sellers have to be responsive to questions and comments. I voted for negative feedback. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.