South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

August 24, 2019, 08:35:14 AM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Follow saskeptics on twitter.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: 1 2 [3]  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

Another wonder of GPS technology .... or maybe not?

 (Read 6984 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
cr1t
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +4/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 544



cr1t
« Reply #30 on: August 08, 2013, 09:30:16 AM »



It is especially their stance against prohibitions of all sorts that I am in strong sympathy with. I always have this feeling that the line between a nanny state and a police state is a thin and blurry one.



I agree, I have no issue with people doing anything they want as long as they are responsible.
But lets be honest people on drugs or alcohol are not, And if you going to use my tax money to
pick them up in an Ambulance when they are busy OD, that is where I start saying maybe it should not
be legal.
Logged
st0nes
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 942



mark.widdicombe1
WWW
« Reply #31 on: August 08, 2013, 15:11:45 PM »



It is especially their stance against prohibitions of all sorts that I am in strong sympathy with. I always have this feeling that the line between a nanny state and a police state is a thin and blurry one.



I agree, I have no issue with people doing anything they want as long as they are responsible.
But lets be honest people on drugs or alcohol are not, And if you going to use my tax money to
pick them up in an Ambulance when they are busy OD, that is where I start saying maybe it should not
be legal.

No, you should use their tax money.  Legalise the stuff and tax it, just like booze & fags.  The money that was paid to organised crime (dealers, &c.) can be paid instead to disorganised crime (government).  At present, your tax money goes to scraping them off the pavements and the fiscus receives nothing.
Logged
brianvds
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 1829



WWW
« Reply #32 on: August 08, 2013, 16:49:11 PM »

Speaking of politics, a colleague of mine, who is a Zimbabwean, told me this joke:

Robert Mugabe suggested to his wife and three children that, to celebrate his recent re-election as president, they all take a holiday to the Bahamas together. They all liked the idea except that they preferred Mauritius as destination.

Since they couldn't come to an agreement on the matter, they decided to put it to the vote. They ended up going to the Bahamas: Mugabe won 70% of the votes...

 Grin

Logged
Hermes
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +18/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 1137



« Reply #33 on: August 08, 2013, 19:58:08 PM »

disorganised crime (government)
Grin
Logged
cr1t
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +4/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 544



cr1t
« Reply #34 on: August 12, 2013, 08:28:46 AM »



It is especially their stance against prohibitions of all sorts that I am in strong sympathy with. I always have this feeling that the line between a nanny state and a police state is a thin and blurry one.



I agree, I have no issue with people doing anything they want as long as they are responsible.
But lets be honest people on drugs or alcohol are not, And if you going to use my tax money to
pick them up in an Ambulance when they are busy OD, that is where I start saying maybe it should not
be legal.

No, you should use their tax money.  Legalise the stuff and tax it, just like booze & fags.  The money that was paid to organised crime (dealers, &c.) can be paid instead to disorganised crime (government).  At present, your tax money goes to scraping them off the pavements and the fiscus receives nothing.


I suspect that it would have to be so heavily taxed that there would then still be a black market much like cigarettes and booze.
Logged
cr1t
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +4/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 544



cr1t
« Reply #35 on: July 24, 2014, 09:02:53 AM »


I have a distaste for their "guilty until proven innocent" ways. I bought a TV, big deal, that doesn't mean I watch any broadcast TV. However I must still have a TV license until such time as I've proven that I had the reception equipment in the TV removed by a "qualified technician". All this so that I can fund stuff like SABC propaga.... I mean news.

I've wondered when the digital transmission will come in that you can claim if you don't own a set top box. you don't have to pay the TV lic.
Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 3078



« Reply #36 on: July 24, 2014, 10:46:20 AM »

That's a very good point, once they suspend analogue TV transmissions.

However, isn't the contention also that radio equipment in your car can receive SABC radio signals and hence you're once again indebted?
Logged
Rigil Kent
Clotting Factor
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 2460


Three men make a tiger.


« Reply #37 on: July 24, 2014, 10:56:20 AM »

I've wondered when the digital transmission will come in that you can claim if you don't own a set top box. you don't have to pay the TV lic.

I doubt it. By analogy (or soon by digalogy) , you still need a permit for your rifle, whether it has bullets or not. And for your wife, whether she irons or not.

Rigil
Logged
cr1t
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +4/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 544



cr1t
« Reply #38 on: July 24, 2014, 13:53:52 PM »

That's a very good point, once they suspend analogue TV transmissions.
However, isn't the contention also that radio equipment in your car can receive SABC radio signals and hence you're once again indebted?


I think technically that is the law, but they don't enforce radio.

I doubt it. By analogy (or soon by digalogy) , you still need a permit for your rifle, whether it has bullets or not. And for your wife, whether she irons or not.
Rigil


Funny but i disagree, according to there own definition

“television set”: means any apparatus designed or adapted to be capable of receiving  transmissions broadcast in the course of a television broadcasting service; and includes computers fitted with electronic broadcast cards (television tuner cards) and the electronic broadcast cards themselves;
http://www.sabc.co.za/wps/portal/SABC/tvlicterms

So if you can't receive a signal you don't owe them squat.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]  All   Go Up
  Print  


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.4 seconds with 23 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page February 26, 2019, 10:38:20 AM
Privacy Policy