A new way to spot Miata owners

In article >,
"~AlicGinnis~" > wrote:

> Google earth, and their ilk,
> have pretty much removed anyone's right to privacy.

Indeed. I had to stop wearing my tinfoil hat after seeing how well it
showed up on Google Earth. I mean, what's the point of shielding your
brainwaves when everyone can see where you were five years ago?

</GETALIFE>

--
Lanny Chambers
St. Louis, MO
'94C

Whence comes this "right"?

"~AlicGinnis~" > wrote in message
. ..
> It's good to know the Chinese occupiers will be
> able to track everybody down using google earth after the invasion. The
> lucky people
> will be the ones whoes houses are a block off target, thus giving them
> a little time to escape. The real problems will start if a missle knocks
> out our GPS, and staillite phone, systems. Google earth, and their ilk,
> have pretty much removed anyone's right to privacy.
>
>
> "pws" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Dana Myers wrote:
>>
>>> Not anymore than this is:
>>>
>>> 38.13285 -122.256573
>>>
>>> :-)
>>>
>>> Dana
>>> P.S. Mine used to be parked right about there.
>>
>>
>> This is a little scary. The car on the right is my first Miata, the
>> wrecked 1996 "M" Edition.
>> Next to it is the 1991 Silverstone, and unless I am mistaken, that is me
>> between the two Miatas, about halfway done taking the tan car cover off
>> of the wrecked '96M.
>>
>> 30°20'49.61"N 97°44'51.80"W
>>
>> I guess the images are around 3 years old now. It has been a while since
>> I have been at that location.
>>
>> Pat
>
>

"Aardvark J. Bandersnatch, BA, MA, BLT, PhD, MYOB, STFU"
> wrote:

> Whence comes this "right"?

There is a very common misconception that the US Constitution
guarantees the right to privacy, it does not except in a very limited
way.




--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project:
http://improve-usenet.org

Begging the question.

From whence do "rights" derive?



"XS11E" > wrote in message
. 236...
> "Aardvark J. Bandersnatch, BA, MA, BLT, PhD, MYOB, STFU"
> > wrote:
>
>> Whence comes this "right"?
>
> There is a very common misconception that the US Constitution
> guarantees the right to privacy, it does not except in a very limited
> way.
>
>
>
>
> --
> XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
> The Usenet Improvement Project:
> http://improve-usenet.org

"Aardvark J. Bandersnatch, BA, MA, BLT, PhD, MYOB, STFU"
> wrote:

>
> Begging the question.
>
> From whence do "rights" derive?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights


--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project:
http://improve-usenet.org

I love wikipedia. Very informative.

Chris
99BBB

"XS11E" > wrote in message
. 236...
> "Aardvark J. Bandersnatch, BA, MA, BLT, PhD, MYOB, STFU"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> Begging the question.
>>
>> From whence do "rights" derive?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights
>
>
> --
> XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
> The Usenet Improvement Project:
> http://improve-usenet.org

In article >,
"Chris D'Agnolo" > wrote:

> I love wikipedia. Very informative.

The only problem is it's hard to tell when an article is accurate. It's
pretty good, overall, but some authors have agendas, and they can get
away with considerable mischief unless someone makes a fuss.

--
Lanny Chambers
St. Louis, MO
'94C

The linked article was pretty darn good, though. The Stanford site is,
however, more "authoritative" in that it has been peer reviewed:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights-human/


"Lanny Chambers" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Chris D'Agnolo" > wrote:
>
>> I love wikipedia. Very informative.
>
> The only problem is it's hard to tell when an article is accurate. It's
> pretty good, overall, but some authors have agendas, and they can get
> away with considerable mischief unless someone makes a fuss.
>
> --
> Lanny Chambers
> St. Louis, MO
> '94C

A second site that contains similar materials to the original Wiki article:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights/


"Aardvark J. Bandersnatch, BA, MA, BLT, PhD, MYOB, STFU"
> wrote in message
m...
>
> The linked article was pretty darn good, though. The Stanford site is,
> however, more "authoritative" in that it has been peer reviewed:
>
> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights-human/
>
>
> "Lanny Chambers" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> "Chris D'Agnolo" > wrote:
>>
>>> I love wikipedia. Very informative.
>>
>> The only problem is it's hard to tell when an article is accurate. It's
>> pretty good, overall, but some authors have agendas, and they can get
>> away with considerable mischief unless someone makes a fuss.
>>
>> --
>> Lanny Chambers
>> St. Louis, MO
>> '94C
>
>

Lanny Chambers wrote:
> In article >,
> "Chris D'Agnolo" > wrote:
>
>> I love wikipedia. Very informative.
>
> The only problem is it's hard to tell when an article is accurate. It's
> pretty good, overall, but some authors have agendas, and they can get
> away with considerable mischief unless someone makes a fuss.
>
It's the same thing with every encyclopedia.

I have worked a few year as an IT guy in a company doing computerized
versions of dictionaries and encyclopedias and I remember talking with
editors about article quality and stuff. It's a business where everyone
knows there is no such thing as 100% perfect. In some articles it may be
easy but in many cases the writers views may come through if perhaps
only very slightly.

Kind regards
Bruno