OT: And now for something completely different...

[Don Y]

Hi David,

On 4/25/2015 10:47 AM, David Brown wrote:

On 24/04/15 23:21, Don Y wrote:

I haven't commented much here, especially further on in the post. It's not
because I haven't read your post, or have anything against it - I agree with a
large proportion of it. It's simply that there is so much of it that I don't
have the time or opportunity to comment in quantity.

Not expected to. When you engage in a dialog, you don't expect the
other party(ies) to respond to every anecdote, etc. We're basically
saying the same sorts of things -- but with minor tweaks and anecdotes.

A friend once posed the question, "Is suicide justified?" (it would be
great if I could insert a lengthy pause in YOUR reading, here, so you
could actually *think* about that question -- in EXACTLY those three
words!).

My immediate response would be the same as yours, I think.

The question becomes one of whether or not you would invest the
effort to come up with "an answer" or avoid it as too difficult.
Just like the more exotic "thought experiments" I suggested
(save kids by sacrificing someone else, etc.)

I've been fascinated by these sorts of questions as they really
force you to think hard on your values, how you parse the subtleties
of each scenario, etc. (I didn't have a "liberal arts" education so
was never exposed to things like "Psychology")

It's /not/ fine to say "my equally ignorant, uninformed and inexperienced
pastor read the answer in 2000 year old book about a different culture in a
different time, so I'll accept his word for it".

+42

I attended a (supposedly secular) presentation at a local "place of
worship" a month or two ago. Of course, most of the attendees were
"worshippers".

It was *scary* to find myself surrounded by the *equivalent* of a (black)
Southern Baptist group engaged in "group-speak" ("Amen", etc.) and realize
the sort of "group-think" that was happening to promote that! "I thought
this sort of thing only happened as stereotypes in movies?!"

It's amazing the ease with which being in a group affects your own attitudes
and behaviours.

People want not to think. Whoever "assumes command" in a crisis situation
(even if he's "just the guy who happened to be sitting next to you on the
bus BEFORE it crashed) is typically "followed" -- even if his/her decisions
are flawed (and we already assume no one knows anything definitive about
his/her CAPABILITIES... yet, you'll let *him* lead you from the burning
building, etc.)

On holiday recently, we were at a "medieval banquet" with a knights'
tournament. People at the event were divided up and given a coloured tunic,
then sat in groups - our group was to cheer for "the blue guy", another group
cheered for "the red guy", and so on. You get carried away. When the knights
were fighting each other, ganging up on each other, imprisoning and torturing
each other, it was perfectly clear to us that the blue guy was a good guy - it
was his enemies that were the evil ones, and we were calling for their blood.
Objectively, "our" guy was just as evil and nasty as the others, yet we "knew"
he was the good guy.

Isn't that what spectator sport is all about?

A side-effect of this would be that everyone who relies on a government
program of some sort (i.e., the populations that the current initiatives
tend to suppress) would be incentivized to get that credential! And,
then be fully capable -- without artificial restraint -- of voting.

One could similarly require that credential in financial transactions:
banking, stocks, etc. -- as a way of ensuring and validating legitimate
ownership. Thus fight any "fraud" in income hiding, etc.

You would be guaranteed that a certain proportion of people would see such an
ID scheme as an invasion of privacy, or against their "right" to anonymity.

Of course! But, the thinking isn't along those lines -- or any other
lines that would address ALL of these "potential opportunities for fraud".
Rather, pick one approach, and "wink" as you claim what a good solution it
is to an unsubstantiated problem!

Groups that help register people to vote (and, the hypothetical groups
that would undoubtedly help them get this ID) are then legislated against
(again, claiming that these are opportunities for fraud). One suspects
that if you provided free transportation for the individual voter to
hand carry their registration form to the registrar, an attempt to make
THAT illegal would ensue.

[I.e., the "voter fraud" issue is a red herring]

[Many people here have two homes -- one typically in another state
(i.e., voting district). What mechanism is in place to prevent them
from voting in both places -- "mail in ballot"? Wouldn't want to
allow or even TEMPT folks who are "well off" to consider trying to beat
the system in that way!]

Here in Norway, you have to provide a valid identification for voting, but
there is no national ID card (they keep talking about introducing one, but the
bureaucracy involved seems too complicated for anything to actually happen).
They accept passports, drivers license, bank cards, and a few other cards (all
with your name, picture, and social security number).

But, none prove that you are a legal resident *or* indicate where you
SHOULD be voting! E.g., there is nothing *practically* stopping me from
asking for a mail-in (absentee) ballot from the location of my "Summer
residence" to be mailed to me at my "Winter residence". Fill out the
absentee ballot. Drop it in the post. Then, walk in to the local
voting place and cast a vote *there*, as well.

"Trust me, I'm entitled to cast this ballot and I'm entitled to cast it here!"

I present a driver's license. My SSN is not present there. Possessing
a driver's license is not proof that you are entitled to vote.

And, folks who are entitled may not have a driver's license, few have
passports (I was 30 before I had the need for one), etc. I know people
who don't have checking accounts! I can imagine those without credit
cards (and, for the most part, only passports and DL's have photos).

Does financial status dictate right to vote?

I know of two cases where DNRs were not honored. It was actually the
*threat* of a future lawsuit in the event they continued to be ignored
that caused them to be honored: serve notice to staff in the presence
of witness along with ANOTHER copy of the Advanced Directives -- so
they can't claim they "lost it".

In Europe, the explicit wishes of patients (or relatives) comes quite low down
in the list of priorities - the main emphasis is on treating patients in the
best way known to the medical staff, according to current practice and
regulations. For the most part, you do what the doctor recommends, with little
influence.

Here, patients have "rights" -- to know what the treatment is, what it
entails, to be able to refuse it (though there are limits on this and
cases where patients have been forced to have treatments despite their
personal or religious objections). Indeed, it is partly this that
causes our health care expenditures to be so much higher than other
parts of the world -- often with no better results. Demanding cosmetic
surgery instead of "just stitch it up", insisting on the latest
treatments (regardless of cost or expected outcome), etc.

As we've said in this thread, people here (US) don't want to "think hard"
about these problems -- easier to just ask for "The Works" (esp if "it's
not *my* money -- it's the insurance company's, gummit's, etc.)

It seems that there are strong genetic influences on our susceptibility
to addiction (for /all/ addictions). Maybe we should all be genetically
screened at birth, and only those with the right genes are allowed to
buy drugs or alcohol.

Wait for the next Chinese "experiment" to excise the addiction gene
at conception? :-/

shrug> My "proof" of the nonexistence of a deity: if THIS is the
BEST he could come up with...

"If we were truly created by God, then why do we still occasionally bite
the insides of our own mouths?" (Dara O'Briain)

If you haven't seen Dara O'Briain's sketches on religion (and many other
topics), spend some time with him on Youtube.

<frown> I look for *fewer* things to do on-line, not more. :< Despite
my lengthy posts, etc. I type fast enough that my online activities don't
amount to much "real" time.

I *would* recommend Twain's "Letters from the Earth". He points out the
ludicrousy of most of these (Christian) concepts of morality, heaven, etc.

As Thermoman (somewhere in season 2 of _My Hero_) commenting about all the
dreadful things that are eaten over the XMAS holiday, the folks we spend it
with, etc. "And you look FORWARD to this?"

More house guests. So, I've been ordered to get my shi^H^H^H great stuff
off the living room floor :-/ (Women. Just don't seem to have the right
"priororities"! "Why can't you go to THEIR house??")

 

[Don Y]

On 4/25/2015 12:53 PM, Don Y wrote:

shrug> My "proof" of the nonexistence of a deity: if THIS is the
BEST he could come up with...

"If we were truly created by God, then why do we still occasionally bite
the insides of our own mouths?" (Dara O'Briain)

If you haven't seen Dara O'Briain's sketches on religion (and many other
topics), spend some time with him on Youtube.

frown> I look for *fewer* things to do on-line, not more. :< Despite
my lengthy posts, etc. I type fast enough that my online activities don't
amount to much "real" time.

A friend reading over our shoulders has offered to drop some DVD's
in the mail for me to watch. I may avail myself of the offer as
it would be something I could do while working on "other stuff"
(as I often do wrt "movies", etc.)

 

[amdx]

On 4/22/2015 11:51 AM, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:

Den onsdag den 22. april 2015 kl. 18.34.18 UTC+2 skrev Don Y:
"Denmark outlaws bestiality in narrow vote"

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/denmark-outlaws-bestiality-in-narrow-vote/

*NARROW* vote? Do they have lots of sheep-f*ckers in their government??

(Amazing to think there even *needs* to be such a law! :< I think
I'd be too embarassed to ask our local congress-person what the state
of *our* laws is on that subject...)

Is this guy getting close?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZ9FjB9hkg4

 

[mpm]

On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 12:34:18 PM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:

"Denmark outlaws bestiality in narrow vote"

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/denmark-outlaws-bestiality-in-narrow-vote/

*NARROW* vote? Do they have lots of sheep-f*ckers in their government??

(Amazing to think there even *needs* to be such a law! :< I think
I'd be too embarassed to ask our local congress-person what the state
of *our* laws is on that subject...)

One of my favorite cartoons...
https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3443/3364761521_abf73ce519.jpg

 

[Don Y]

On 4/25/2015 8:48 PM, mpm wrote:

On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 12:34:18 PM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:
"Denmark outlaws bestiality in narrow vote"

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/denmark-outlaws-bestiality-in-narrow-vote/

*NARROW* vote? Do they have lots of sheep-f*ckers in their government??

(Amazing to think there even *needs* to be such a law! :< I think
I'd be too embarassed to ask our local congress-person what the state
of *our* laws is on that subject...)

One of my favorite cartoons...
https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3443/3364761521_abf73ce519.jpg

I really should set up a website to make this easier -- but, I can
almost always find what I'm looking for with a few clicks!

<http://imghumour.com/categories/comic-strips/view/oi-jeff-thats-our-lunch>

 

[David Brown]

On 25/04/15 21:53, Don Y wrote:

Hi David,

On 4/25/2015 10:47 AM, David Brown wrote:
On 24/04/15 23:21, Don Y wrote:

I haven't commented much here, especially further on in the post.
It's not
because I haven't read your post, or have anything against it - I
agree with a
large proportion of it. It's simply that there is so much of it that
I don't
have the time or opportunity to comment in quantity.

Not expected to. When you engage in a dialog, you don't expect the
other party(ies) to respond to every anecdote, etc. We're basically
saying the same sorts of things -- but with minor tweaks and anecdotes.

A friend once posed the question, "Is suicide justified?" (it would be
great if I could insert a lengthy pause in YOUR reading, here, so you
could actually *think* about that question -- in EXACTLY those three
words!).

My immediate response would be the same as yours, I think.

The question becomes one of whether or not you would invest the
effort to come up with "an answer" or avoid it as too difficult.
Just like the more exotic "thought experiments" I suggested
(save kids by sacrificing someone else, etc.)

I don't think I'd avoid the question as being too difficult - though it
would be hard work, I believe I could give some insightful answers if I
spent the time on it. But I am still avoiding it because I don't /want/
to think about it. No matter how you look at it, it's not a pleasant
topic for thought on a fine, sunny Sunday morning. I've got nothing
against hard thinking (I prefer it to hard work , but often I like to
choose nicer topics. Sometimes it's good to work through your thoughts,
opinions, morals and values with topics like this, but not today.

I've been fascinated by these sorts of questions as they really
force you to think hard on your values, how you parse the subtleties
of each scenario, etc. (I didn't have a "liberal arts" education so
was never exposed to things like "Psychology")

It's /not/ fine to say "my equally ignorant, uninformed and inexperienced
pastor read the answer in 2000 year old book about a different culture
in a
different time, so I'll accept his word for it".

+42

I attended a (supposedly secular) presentation at a local "place of
worship" a month or two ago. Of course, most of the attendees were
"worshippers".

It was *scary* to find myself surrounded by the *equivalent* of a
(black)
Southern Baptist group engaged in "group-speak" ("Amen", etc.) and
realize
the sort of "group-think" that was happening to promote that! "I
thought
this sort of thing only happened as stereotypes in movies?!"

It's amazing the ease with which being in a group affects your own
attitudes
and behaviours.

People want not to think. Whoever "assumes command" in a crisis situation
(even if he's "just the guy who happened to be sitting next to you on the
bus BEFORE it crashed) is typically "followed" -- even if his/her decisions
are flawed (and we already assume no one knows anything definitive about
his/her CAPABILITIES... yet, you'll let *him* lead you from the burning
building, etc.)

On holiday recently, we were at a "medieval banquet" with a knights'
tournament. People at the event were divided up and given a coloured
tunic,
then sat in groups - our group was to cheer for "the blue guy",
another group
cheered for "the red guy", and so on. You get carried away. When the
knights
were fighting each other, ganging up on each other, imprisoning and
torturing
each other, it was perfectly clear to us that the blue guy was a good
guy - it
was his enemies that were the evil ones, and we were calling for their
blood.
Objectively, "our" guy was just as evil and nasty as the others, yet
we "knew"
he was the good guy.

Isn't that what spectator sport is all about?

I guess so. I've never been fond of spectator sport - I just cannot see
why people get so worked up about it. But maybe this experience will
help me understand.

A side-effect of this would be that everyone who relies on a government
program of some sort (i.e., the populations that the current initiatives
tend to suppress) would be incentivized to get that credential! And,
then be fully capable -- without artificial restraint -- of voting.

One could similarly require that credential in financial transactions:
banking, stocks, etc. -- as a way of ensuring and validating legitimate
ownership. Thus fight any "fraud" in income hiding, etc.

You would be guaranteed that a certain proportion of people would see
such an
ID scheme as an invasion of privacy, or against their "right" to
anonymity.

Of course! But, the thinking isn't along those lines -- or any other
lines that would address ALL of these "potential opportunities for fraud".
Rather, pick one approach, and "wink" as you claim what a good solution it
is to an unsubstantiated problem!

Have you ever thought of entering politics?

Groups that help register people to vote (and, the hypothetical groups
that would undoubtedly help them get this ID) are then legislated against
(again, claiming that these are opportunities for fraud). One suspects
that if you provided free transportation for the individual voter to
hand carry their registration form to the registrar, an attempt to make
THAT illegal would ensue.

[I.e., the "voter fraud" issue is a red herring]

[Many people here have two homes -- one typically in another state
(i.e., voting district). What mechanism is in place to prevent them
from voting in both places -- "mail in ballot"? Wouldn't want to
allow or even TEMPT folks who are "well off" to consider trying to beat
the system in that way!]

Here in Norway, you have to provide a valid identification for voting,
but
there is no national ID card (they keep talking about introducing one,
but the
bureaucracy involved seems too complicated for anything to actually
happen).
They accept passports, drivers license, bank cards, and a few other
cards (all
with your name, picture, and social security number).

But, none prove that you are a legal resident *or* indicate where you
SHOULD be voting! E.g., there is nothing *practically* stopping me from
asking for a mail-in (absentee) ballot from the location of my "Summer
residence" to be mailed to me at my "Winter residence". Fill out the
absentee ballot. Drop it in the post. Then, walk in to the local
voting place and cast a vote *there*, as well.

Ah, there is a difference here - in the USA, /you/ register to vote, in
Norway the state makes the lists. I get to vote because the state tells
me I can vote, based on the registrations they have of my resident
county, social security and tax status, nationality, and so on. If I
were to move to a different part of the country, I have to register that
move - and the voting lists would be changed accordingly.

"Trust me, I'm entitled to cast this ballot and I'm entitled to cast it
here!"

I present a driver's license. My SSN is not present there. Possessing
a driver's license is not proof that you are entitled to vote.

Nor is it here - but it is solid identification of who I am (the
Norwegian drivers licence includes the SSN and a picture), and is
matched to the lists that the voting station officials have.

And, folks who are entitled may not have a driver's license, few have
passports (I was 30 before I had the need for one), etc. I know people
who don't have checking accounts! I can imagine those without credit
cards (and, for the most part, only passports and DL's have photos).

Our bank cards mostly have pictures, and most people here have
passports. I don't think you could live as a "normal" person in Norway
without a bank card - your pay (or social security benefits, etc.) are
paid into a bank account. But I am sure that there are other ways of
positively identifying yourself at voting stations even if you don't
have one of these documents.

Does financial status dictate right to vote?

Nope (fairly obviously).

But you are talking about a country where people use their bank cards to
buy a cup of coffee, and there is a plan to abolish all bank notes
greater than 500 Kr. (about $70) because the major usage for them is
criminal activity. /Everyone/ has a bank card.

I know of two cases where DNRs were not honored. It was actually the
*threat* of a future lawsuit in the event they continued to be ignored
that caused them to be honored: serve notice to staff in the presence
of witness along with ANOTHER copy of the Advanced Directives -- so
they can't claim they "lost it".

In Europe, the explicit wishes of patients (or relatives) comes quite
low down
in the list of priorities - the main emphasis is on treating patients
in the
best way known to the medical staff, according to current practice and
regulations. For the most part, you do what the doctor recommends,
with little
influence.

Here, patients have "rights" -- to know what the treatment is, what it
entails, to be able to refuse it (though there are limits on this and
cases where patients have been forced to have treatments despite their
personal or religious objections). Indeed, it is partly this that
causes our health care expenditures to be so much higher than other
parts of the world -- often with no better results. Demanding cosmetic
surgery instead of "just stitch it up", insisting on the latest
treatments (regardless of cost or expected outcome), etc.

Oh, we have patients rights here too (both to know about treatments, and
to have some influence). It's just there is far less patient influence
- partly because we don't view health care as a paid-for service (and
thus there is no "customer choice" or "customer is always right"
attitude), and partly because people trust the medical staff to do the
right thing (perhaps because we don't think they are just trying to make
a bigger profit).

As we've said in this thread, people here (US) don't want to "think hard"
about these problems -- easier to just ask for "The Works" (esp if "it's
not *my* money -- it's the insurance company's, gummit's, etc.)

It seems that there are strong genetic influences on our susceptibility
to addiction (for /all/ addictions). Maybe we should all be
genetically
screened at birth, and only those with the right genes are allowed to
buy drugs or alcohol.

Wait for the next Chinese "experiment" to excise the addiction gene
at conception? :-/

shrug> My "proof" of the nonexistence of a deity: if THIS is the
BEST he could come up with...

"If we were truly created by God, then why do we still occasionally
bite
the insides of our own mouths?" (Dara O'Briain)

If you haven't seen Dara O'Briain's sketches on religion (and many other
topics), spend some time with him on Youtube.

frown> I look for *fewer* things to do on-line, not more. :< Despite
my lengthy posts, etc. I type fast enough that my online activities don't
amount to much "real" time.

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaQlQjLDsvI>
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Avfac4zI8l4>
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCZn71I9LfQ>
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVxOb8-d7Ic>

You won't regret the time spent.

I *would* recommend Twain's "Letters from the Earth". He points out the
ludicrousy of most of these (Christian) concepts of morality, heaven, etc.

As Thermoman (somewhere in season 2 of _My Hero_) commenting about all the
dreadful things that are eaten over the XMAS holiday, the folks we spend it
with, etc. "And you look FORWARD to this?"

More house guests. So, I've been ordered to get my shi^H^H^H great stuff
off the living room floor :-/ (Women. Just don't seem to have the right
"priororities"! "Why can't you go to THEIR house??")

 

[Don Y]

The question becomes one of whether or not you would invest the
effort to come up with "an answer" or avoid it as too difficult.
Just like the more exotic "thought experiments" I suggested
(save kids by sacrificing someone else, etc.)

I don't think I'd avoid the question as being too difficult - though it would
be hard work, I believe I could give some insightful answers if I spent the
time on it. But I am still avoiding it because I don't /want/ to think about
it. No matter how you look at it, it's not a pleasant topic for thought on a
fine, sunny Sunday morning. I've got nothing against hard thinking (I prefer
it to hard work , but often I like to choose nicer topics. Sometimes it's
good to work through your thoughts, opinions, morals and values with topics
like this, but not today.

Ah, I am fascinated by such things! Especially if they reveal something
(in this case, personal) that I might NEVER have an opportunity to
discover, otherwise (unlikely that I will ever have to "save kids playing
in the street by effectively sacrificing a stranger!").

These sorts are fiendishly difficult because they appear to bring out
inconsistencies in one's thoughts -- like folks who think "all life is
sacred"... yet endorse the death penalty, etc. I.e., if you *choose*
to have different beliefs on subtly different scenarios, then it seems
like you'd want to understand *why*... "What is THE difference that
results in my different opinion in largely similar scenarios?"

On holiday recently, we were at a "medieval banquet" with a knights'
tournament. People at the event were divided up and given a coloured
tunic,
then sat in groups - our group was to cheer for "the blue guy",
another group
cheered for "the red guy", and so on. You get carried away. When the
knights
were fighting each other, ganging up on each other, imprisoning and
torturing
each other, it was perfectly clear to us that the blue guy was a good
guy - it
was his enemies that were the evil ones, and we were calling for their
blood.
Objectively, "our" guy was just as evil and nasty as the others, yet
we "knew"
he was the good guy.

Isn't that what spectator sport is all about?

I guess so. I've never been fond of spectator sport - I just cannot see why
people get so worked up about it. But maybe this experience will help me
understand.

Ditto. Nor why they wouldn't want to *participate*. I.e., what's the
appeal of porn? Watching someone ELSE have a good time?? Huh?? :<

You would be guaranteed that a certain proportion of people would see
such an
ID scheme as an invasion of privacy, or against their "right" to
anonymity.

Of course! But, the thinking isn't along those lines -- or any other
lines that would address ALL of these "potential opportunities for fraud".
Rather, pick one approach, and "wink" as you claim what a good solution it
is to an unsubstantiated problem!

Have you ever thought of entering politics?

My attitude is that those folks belong in the "B ship"! (HHGTTG) For
very obvious reasons!

"Trust me, I'm entitled to cast this ballot and I'm entitled to cast it
here!"

I present a driver's license. My SSN is not present there. Possessing
a driver's license is not proof that you are entitled to vote.

Nor is it here - but it is solid identification of who I am (the Norwegian
drivers licence includes the SSN and a picture), and is matched to the lists
that the voting station officials have.

Our voting system is effectively an independent system. No one knows if
you've voted in two (or more) jurisdictions. In theory, you should only
have *one* driver's license (most states require you to surrender any valid
licenses at the time you apply for a new one) -- yet there is no system
that verifies this.

Your valid voter registration card FROM ANOTHER STATE is NOT even recognized
as proof of eligibility to *register* to vote *here*. Nor is a valid driver's
license from another state! (and, the rules regarding these issues themselves
can also vary from state to state!).

Non-citizens can obtain driver's licenses. Etc. AT BEST, it says who
you are (neglecting the possibility of forged documents -- probably a lot
harder nowadays than, e.g., the first license *I* was issued... just half
of a Hollerith card!). But, makes no statement as to your eligibility to
vote -- or even your *actual* residence (e.g., here, if you move, you
*might* notify DMV of your new address). For example, my license is valid
for ~20 years WITHOUT renewal (or a new photo!) -- I'm sure my appearance
changes over that timespan (and, for many, their address as well!)

And, folks who are entitled may not have a driver's license, few have
passports (I was 30 before I had the need for one), etc. I know people
who don't have checking accounts! I can imagine those without credit
cards (and, for the most part, only passports and DL's have photos).

Our bank cards mostly have pictures, and most people here have passports. I

None of my "bank cards" have a photo. Some date back more than 30 years.
There's less *need* for passports, here, as we can travel the equivalent of
the breadth of Europe and still be in the same country. I maintain my
passport simply because "starting from scratch" is easier than paying the
renewal fee every ~10 years.

don't think you could live as a "normal" person in Norway without a bank card -
your pay (or social security benefits, etc.) are paid into a bank account. But

Not so, here. I, for example, live largely on a cash basis. Pay each
bill/expense as encountered instead of having to "pay it" with a card...
then, pay off the *card* (with a check), etc. I use (credit) cards only
for large purchases for which I want to avail myself of the extra
protections afforded to credit purchases (which are not available to
*debit* card purchases!). Or, if I need a receipt for tax purposes, etc.

Checking accounts tend to have fees associated with them, nowadays. So,
many lower income people can't afford that luxury. Many don't even have
regular bank accounts -- instead, relying on third party check cashing
services to "cash their paychecks" (for a hefty fee).

I am sure that there are other ways of positively identifying yourself at
voting stations even if you don't have one of these documents.

Identifying yourself at the polling place (assuming you are already registered
to vote) can also be done via (two of) non-photo "identification":
* Utility bill (gas, electric, water, sewer, phone, cable TV, etc.) dated
within 90 days of the date of the election.
* Bank or credit union statement dated within 90 days of the date of the
election
* Valid Vehicle Registration
* Indian (Native American) census card
* Property tax statement
* Tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification
* Vehicle insurance card
* Recorder's Certificate
* Valid United States federal, state, or local government issued
identification, including a voter registration card issued by the
County Recorder
* Any mailing to the elector marked “Official Election Material”

Does financial status dictate right to vote?

Nope (fairly obviously).

But you are talking about a country where people use their bank cards to buy a
cup of coffee, and there is a plan to abolish all bank notes greater than 500
Kr. (about $70) because the major usage for them is criminal activity.
/Everyone/ has a bank card.

Not true, here (as above). There is no incentive/requirement to have
one. Hence the "logic" of my national ID suggestion (even if it
was implemented as a FREE credential administered by others under
the constraints of a legal framework).

Here, patients have "rights" -- to know what the treatment is, what it
entails, to be able to refuse it (though there are limits on this and
cases where patients have been forced to have treatments despite their
personal or religious objections). Indeed, it is partly this that
causes our health care expenditures to be so much higher than other
parts of the world -- often with no better results. Demanding cosmetic
surgery instead of "just stitch it up", insisting on the latest
treatments (regardless of cost or expected outcome), etc.

Oh, we have patients rights here too (both to know about treatments, and to
have some influence). It's just there is far less patient influence - partly
because we don't view health care as a paid-for service (and thus there is no
"customer choice" or "customer is always right" attitude), and partly because
people trust the medical staff to do the right thing (perhaps because we don't
think they are just trying to make a bigger profit).

Exactly. No incentive for the provider to *encourage* consumption
(explicitly or implicitly).

Here, patients tend to demand The Best -- and *do* The Least (for their
own care). I.e., "Don't you have a PILL that I can take? (instead
of exercising, changing my lifestyle, dietary habits, etc.)"

shrug> My "proof" of the nonexistence of a deity: if THIS is the
BEST he could come up with...

"If we were truly created by God, then why do we still occasionally
bite
the insides of our own mouths?" (Dara O'Briain)

If you haven't seen Dara O'Briain's sketches on religion (and many other
topics), spend some time with him on Youtube.

frown> I look for *fewer* things to do on-line, not more. :< Despite
my lengthy posts, etc. I type fast enough that my online activities don't
amount to much "real" time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaQlQjLDsvI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Avfac4zI8l4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCZn71I9LfQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVxOb8-d7Ic

You won't regret the time spent.

As I mentioned in another post, a friend has offered to mail me some DVDs.
Much preferable to "watch" (listen) while working on something else (this is
how I "consume" most of the movies that I "watch") than to be bolt-upright
in front of a PC's monitor spending even *more* time "on-line".

Neighbor behind us spends his days "surfing the web" (retired airline pilot).
Ditto the one across the street (retired accountant). Next door spends much
of his evening hours (not yet retired) on-line. Most folks spend a sizeable
portion of their time "playing with their phone", etc.

As my job already involves spending a fair bit of time "at a computer"
and "online", I'm not keen on adding to that experience. Esp if I can
just throw some media into a player and cut that tie!

 

[David Brown]

On 27/04/15 00:56, Don Y wrote:

The question becomes one of whether or not you would invest the
effort to come up with "an answer" or avoid it as too difficult.
Just like the more exotic "thought experiments" I suggested
(save kids by sacrificing someone else, etc.)

I don't think I'd avoid the question as being too difficult - though
it would
be hard work, I believe I could give some insightful answers if I
spent the
time on it. But I am still avoiding it because I don't /want/ to
think about
it. No matter how you look at it, it's not a pleasant topic for
thought on a
fine, sunny Sunday morning. I've got nothing against hard thinking (I
prefer
it to hard work , but often I like to choose nicer topics.
Sometimes it's
good to work through your thoughts, opinions, morals and values with
topics
like this, but not today.

Ah, I am fascinated by such things! Especially if they reveal something
(in this case, personal) that I might NEVER have an opportunity to
discover, otherwise (unlikely that I will ever have to "save kids playing
in the street by effectively sacrificing a stranger!").

These sorts are fiendishly difficult because they appear to bring out
inconsistencies in one's thoughts -- like folks who think "all life is
sacred"... yet endorse the death penalty, etc. I.e., if you *choose*
to have different beliefs on subtly different scenarios, then it seems
like you'd want to understand *why*... "What is THE difference that
results in my different opinion in largely similar scenarios?"

Yes, they are good questions for people who (claim to) hold very
absolute values, or view the world as black-and-white. (Remember, only
Siths think in absolutes!)

On holiday recently, we were at a "medieval banquet" with a knights'
tournament. People at the event were divided up and given a coloured
tunic,
then sat in groups - our group was to cheer for "the blue guy",
another group
cheered for "the red guy", and so on. You get carried away. When the
knights
were fighting each other, ganging up on each other, imprisoning and
torturing
each other, it was perfectly clear to us that the blue guy was a good
guy - it
was his enemies that were the evil ones, and we were calling for their
blood.
Objectively, "our" guy was just as evil and nasty as the others, yet
we "knew"
he was the good guy.

Isn't that what spectator sport is all about?

I guess so. I've never been fond of spectator sport - I just cannot
see why
people get so worked up about it. But maybe this experience will help me
understand.

Ditto. Nor why they wouldn't want to *participate*. I.e., what's the
appeal of porn? Watching someone ELSE have a good time?? Huh?? :

Of course, for many sports there is little appeal in participating
unless people are watching. Does anyone actually /like/ playing
American football, or are they all in it for the money, fame,
cheerleaders, etc.?

You would be guaranteed that a certain proportion of people would see
such an
ID scheme as an invasion of privacy, or against their "right" to
anonymity.

Of course! But, the thinking isn't along those lines -- or any other
lines that would address ALL of these "potential opportunities for
fraud".
Rather, pick one approach, and "wink" as you claim what a good
solution it
is to an unsubstantiated problem!

Have you ever thought of entering politics?

My attitude is that those folks belong in the "B ship"! (HHGTTG) For
very obvious reasons!

Don't worry - I wasn't serious.

"Trust me, I'm entitled to cast this ballot and I'm entitled to cast it
here!"

I present a driver's license. My SSN is not present there. Possessing
a driver's license is not proof that you are entitled to vote.

Nor is it here - but it is solid identification of who I am (the
Norwegian
drivers licence includes the SSN and a picture), and is matched to the
lists
that the voting station officials have.

Our voting system is effectively an independent system. No one knows if
you've voted in two (or more) jurisdictions. In theory, you should only
have *one* driver's license (most states require you to surrender any valid
licenses at the time you apply for a new one) -- yet there is no system
that verifies this.

Your valid voter registration card FROM ANOTHER STATE is NOT even
recognized
as proof of eligibility to *register* to vote *here*. Nor is a valid
driver's
license from another state! (and, the rules regarding these issues
themselves
can also vary from state to state!).

Non-citizens can obtain driver's licenses. Etc. AT BEST, it says who
you are (neglecting the possibility of forged documents -- probably a lot
harder nowadays than, e.g., the first license *I* was issued... just half
of a Hollerith card!). But, makes no statement as to your eligibility to
vote -- or even your *actual* residence (e.g., here, if you move, you
*might* notify DMV of your new address). For example, my license is valid
for ~20 years WITHOUT renewal (or a new photo!) -- I'm sure my appearance
changes over that timespan (and, for many, their address as well!)

I always thought that /one/ person, /one/ vote was key to democracy, and
thus it is critical for a democratic country to make sure that everyone
who is entitled to vote, can vote exactly once. I also thought that the
same eligibility rules should apply to everyone. It doesn't really
matter whether you allow convicted criminals to vote or not in a
presidential election - but the rules should be the same for all states.

And, folks who are entitled may not have a driver's license, few have
passports (I was 30 before I had the need for one), etc. I know people
who don't have checking accounts! I can imagine those without credit
cards (and, for the most part, only passports and DL's have photos).

Our bank cards mostly have pictures, and most people here have
passports. I

None of my "bank cards" have a photo. Some date back more than 30 years.
There's less *need* for passports, here, as we can travel the equivalent of
the breadth of Europe and still be in the same country. I maintain my
passport simply because "starting from scratch" is easier than paying the
renewal fee every ~10 years.

don't think you could live as a "normal" person in Norway without a
bank card -
your pay (or social security benefits, etc.) are paid into a bank
account. But

Not so, here. I, for example, live largely on a cash basis. Pay each
bill/expense as encountered instead of having to "pay it" with a card...
then, pay off the *card* (with a check), etc. I use (credit) cards only
for large purchases for which I want to avail myself of the extra
protections afforded to credit purchases (which are not available to
*debit* card purchases!). Or, if I need a receipt for tax purposes, etc.

I am not talking about credit cards - our bank cards are more like
"direct debit" cards. (Of course, people here have credit cards too -
and I use them like you do.) When I buy something in a shop, I put my
card in the terminal, check the price shown, type my pin, and within 3
or 4 seconds the transaction is complete. The money is transferred from
my account to the shop's account. It is much faster than cash, much
safer, far cheaper for the shop (handling cash is expensive and risky).
For the past 10 years or so the cards have had chips - prior to that,
they just had magnetic stripes.

Checking accounts tend to have fees associated with them, nowadays. So,
many lower income people can't afford that luxury. Many don't even have
regular bank accounts -- instead, relying on third party check cashing
services to "cash their paychecks" (for a hefty fee).

Since moving to Norway over 20 years ago, I have never had a chequebook.
I can only once remember /seeing/ a cheque, which was a refund from a
Danish holiday company (when we had to cancel the holiday) - I took it
to the bank to pay into my account, and the teller had to ask one of the
older staff members what it was. Baring black-market work (which runs
on cash, like everywhere else), all payment is direct to accounts, and
has been for as long as I have lived here.

I am sure that there are other ways of positively identifying yourself at
voting stations even if you don't have one of these documents.

Identifying yourself at the polling place (assuming you are already
registered
to vote) can also be done via (two of) non-photo "identification":
* Utility bill (gas, electric, water, sewer, phone, cable TV, etc.)
dated
within 90 days of the date of the election.
* Bank or credit union statement dated within 90 days of the date of the
election
* Valid Vehicle Registration
* Indian (Native American) census card
* Property tax statement
* Tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification
* Vehicle insurance card
* Recorder's Certificate
* Valid United States federal, state, or local government issued
identification, including a voter registration card issued by the
County Recorder
* Any mailing to the elector marked “Official Election Material”

Does financial status dictate right to vote?

Nope (fairly obviously).

But you are talking about a country where people use their bank cards
to buy a
cup of coffee, and there is a plan to abolish all bank notes greater
than 500
Kr. (about $70) because the major usage for them is criminal activity.
/Everyone/ has a bank card.

Not true, here (as above). There is no incentive/requirement to have
one. Hence the "logic" of my national ID suggestion (even if it
was implemented as a FREE credential administered by others under
the constraints of a legal framework).

Here, patients have "rights" -- to know what the treatment is, what it
entails, to be able to refuse it (though there are limits on this and
cases where patients have been forced to have treatments despite their
personal or religious objections). Indeed, it is partly this that
causes our health care expenditures to be so much higher than other
parts of the world -- often with no better results. Demanding cosmetic
surgery instead of "just stitch it up", insisting on the latest
treatments (regardless of cost or expected outcome), etc.

Oh, we have patients rights here too (both to know about treatments,
and to
have some influence). It's just there is far less patient influence -
partly
because we don't view health care as a paid-for service (and thus
there is no
"customer choice" or "customer is always right" attitude), and partly
because
people trust the medical staff to do the right thing (perhaps because
we don't
think they are just trying to make a bigger profit).

Exactly. No incentive for the provider to *encourage* consumption
(explicitly or implicitly).

Here, patients tend to demand The Best -- and *do* The Least (for their
own care). I.e., "Don't you have a PILL that I can take? (instead
of exercising, changing my lifestyle, dietary habits, etc.)"

Norwegians can be lazy too - but I think Americans have perfected the
art

shrug> My "proof" of the nonexistence of a deity: if THIS is the
BEST he could come up with...

"If we were truly created by God, then why do we still occasionally
bite
the insides of our own mouths?" (Dara O'Briain)

If you haven't seen Dara O'Briain's sketches on religion (and many
other
topics), spend some time with him on Youtube.

frown> I look for *fewer* things to do on-line, not more. :< Despite
my lengthy posts, etc. I type fast enough that my online activities
don't
amount to much "real" time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaQlQjLDsvI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Avfac4zI8l4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCZn71I9LfQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVxOb8-d7Ic

You won't regret the time spent.

As I mentioned in another post, a friend has offered to mail me some DVDs.
Much preferable to "watch" (listen) while working on something else
(this is
how I "consume" most of the movies that I "watch") than to be bolt-upright
in front of a PC's monitor spending even *more* time "on-line".

I watch these things from an Android pad and a Chromecast - I much
prefer them on the tele than on a pad screen or PC monitor. But if you
can get the DVD's, then that's often better.

Neighbor behind us spends his days "surfing the web" (retired airline
pilot).
Ditto the one across the street (retired accountant). Next door spends
much
of his evening hours (not yet retired) on-line. Most folks spend a
sizeable
portion of their time "playing with their phone", etc.

As my job already involves spending a fair bit of time "at a computer"
and "online", I'm not keen on adding to that experience. Esp if I can
just throw some media into a player and cut that tie!

 

[Don Y]

I guess so. I've never been fond of spectator sport - I just cannot
see why
people get so worked up about it. But maybe this experience will help me
understand.

Ditto. Nor why they wouldn't want to *participate*. I.e., what's the
appeal of porn? Watching someone ELSE have a good time?? Huh?? :

Of course, for many sports there is little appeal in participating
unless people are watching. Does anyone actually /like/ playing
American football, or are they all in it for the money, fame,
cheerleaders, etc.?

I imagine there are some -- maybe even some *professionals*!
I have friends who are delighted to play a game of "pickup"
basketball -- even when they don't know any of the other
people that they are playing with!

"Trust me, I'm entitled to cast this ballot and I'm entitled to cast it
here!"

I present a driver's license. My SSN is not present there. Possessing
a driver's license is not proof that you are entitled to vote.

Nor is it here - but it is solid identification of who I am (the
Norwegian
drivers licence includes the SSN and a picture), and is matched to the
lists
that the voting station officials have.

Our voting system is effectively an independent system. No one knows if
you've voted in two (or more) jurisdictions. In theory, you should only
have *one* driver's license (most states require you to surrender any valid
licenses at the time you apply for a new one) -- yet there is no system
that verifies this.

Your valid voter registration card FROM ANOTHER STATE is NOT even
recognized
as proof of eligibility to *register* to vote *here*. Nor is a valid
driver's
license from another state! (and, the rules regarding these issues
themselves
can also vary from state to state!).

Non-citizens can obtain driver's licenses. Etc. AT BEST, it says who
you are (neglecting the possibility of forged documents -- probably a lot
harder nowadays than, e.g., the first license *I* was issued... just half
of a Hollerith card!). But, makes no statement as to your eligibility to
vote -- or even your *actual* residence (e.g., here, if you move, you
*might* notify DMV of your new address). For example, my license is valid
for ~20 years WITHOUT renewal (or a new photo!) -- I'm sure my appearance
changes over that timespan (and, for many, their address as well!)

I always thought that /one/ person, /one/ vote was key to democracy, and
thus it is critical for a democratic country to make sure that everyone
who is entitled to vote, can vote exactly once. I also thought that the
same eligibility rules should apply to everyone. It doesn't really
matter whether you allow convicted criminals to vote or not in a
presidential election - but the rules should be the same for all states.

The rules are the same (at least for federal elections). But, the States
are responsible for determining how those rules are enforced, etc.
E.g., how do you determine a voter is a US Citizen? When I originally
registered to vote (place of birth), I wasn't asked for ANY ID. Small
town, everyone knows everyone else (though that itself doesn't ensure
my entire family wasn't there "illegally"!).

We have a wackjob (state) politician who wants to legislate "church
attendance"!
<http://www.aol.com/article/2015/03/28/arizona-lawmaker-proposes-mandatory-church-attendance/21158854/>

Of course, she probably has her own idea as to *which* religious service(s)
would be considered "legally acceptable" for the purpose of the law. No
doubt of the belief that the US was *founded* as a "Christian Nation"
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/15/opinion/sunday/a-christian-nation-since-when.html>
And, probably couldn't *name* more than half a dozen religions -- let alone all
the "variants" on them.

Sort of like the Waitress in Bob's Country Bunker (_The Blues Brothers_)
who's proud that they have *both* kinds of music: country AND western!
:-/

Amusing that she was more concerned with "morality" than, for example,
legislating mandatory *voting* for all citizens!

don't think you could live as a "normal" person in Norway without a
bank card -
your pay (or social security benefits, etc.) are paid into a bank
account. But

Not so, here. I, for example, live largely on a cash basis. Pay each
bill/expense as encountered instead of having to "pay it" with a card...
then, pay off the *card* (with a check), etc. I use (credit) cards only
for large purchases for which I want to avail myself of the extra
protections afforded to credit purchases (which are not available to
*debit* card purchases!). Or, if I need a receipt for tax purposes, etc.

I am not talking about credit cards - our bank cards are more like
"direct debit" cards. (Of course, people here have credit cards too -
and I use them like you do.) When I buy something in a shop, I put my
card in the terminal, check the price shown, type my pin, and within 3
or 4 seconds the transaction is complete. The money is transferred from
my account to the shop's account. It is much faster than cash, much
safer, far cheaper for the shop (handling cash is expensive and risky).
For the past 10 years or so the cards have had chips - prior to that,
they just had magnetic stripes.

Yes, we have credit and debit cards. Using either and you are met with
the "Credit of debit?" query from the cashier. We also have ATM cards which
are sometimes dual-purpose (but, *may* have restrictions to JUST be used
with ATM's -- not in regular stores, etc.). And, of course, lots of
individual "store cards" (good only at that store; or, only for products
from that vendor; etc.)

Still mag striped (some store and gift cards have barcodes) -- despite
the propensity for fraud.

Checking accounts tend to have fees associated with them, nowadays. So,
many lower income people can't afford that luxury. Many don't even have
regular bank accounts -- instead, relying on third party check cashing
services to "cash their paychecks" (for a hefty fee).

Since moving to Norway over 20 years ago, I have never had a chequebook.
I can only once remember /seeing/ a cheque, which was a refund from a
Danish holiday company (when we had to cancel the holiday) - I took it
to the bank to pay into my account, and the teller had to ask one of the
older staff members what it was. Baring black-market work (which runs
on cash, like everywhere else), all payment is direct to accounts, and
has been for as long as I have lived here.

I have 5 or 6 credit cards, probably 2 debit cards and 2 or 3 checkbooks.
I've *never* carried a checkbook on my person -- typically used for
"paying bills" from the kitchen table (utilities, credit card balances,
etc.). Debit cards have few protections (vs credit cards) so there's
little reason for me to use those -- anyone who takes a debit card typically
will take a credit card, as well. Still, rarely use them except for
business purchases so I can generate another receipt (cash register
receipts have magic disappearing ink :> ) for my bookkeeping. Credit
cards are *required* in some cases (e.g., trying to rent a vehicle without
one is an exercise in futility -- indeed, this was my initial motivation
as a teenager for getting them as I traveled a lot for business).

Cash "always works" (in the sorts of day-to-day transactions in which I
engage). The real hassle is lack of arithmetic capabilities among
most cashiers: hand them $6.27 for a $6.22 bill and they will invariably
freeze and try to hand you back the "2 pennies": "Just type it in and
let the machine do your thinking FOR you (if you can't understand the
rationale behind my tender)"

[There was a time I used $2 bills for my purchases -- much handier
than $1, $5, $10 combinations -- but, there is too much novelty
behind that denomination bill... you end up engaged in a discussion
about where you got them, when they last encountered one, etc.]

Exactly. No incentive for the provider to *encourage* consumption
(explicitly or implicitly).

Here, patients tend to demand The Best -- and *do* The Least (for their
own care). I.e., "Don't you have a PILL that I can take? (instead
of exercising, changing my lifestyle, dietary habits, etc.)"

Norwegians can be lazy too - but I think Americans have perfected the
art

Yes. In thought and practice.

You won't regret the time spent.

As I mentioned in another post, a friend has offered to mail me some DVDs.
Much preferable to "watch" (listen) while working on something else
(this is
how I "consume" most of the movies that I "watch") than to be bolt-upright
in front of a PC's monitor spending even *more* time "on-line".

I watch these things from an Android pad and a Chromecast - I much
prefer them on the tele than on a pad screen or PC monitor. But if you
can get the DVD's, then that's often better.

I just like to separate the environment that occupies much of my day
for *work* from the environment that I use for "entertainment". It's
sort of like the advice to keep "the bed for sleeping" and not use
it for reading, watching TV, etc. (apparently contributes to insomnia;
body doesn't pick up on the cue to fall asleep!)

 

"AFAIUI, routine training of some marine mammals involves techniques
that possibly might fall under this legislation. "

What do we have to do to get the gory details on that ?

 

[David Brown]

On 27/04/15 12:15, Don Y wrote:

I guess so. I've never been fond of spectator sport - I just cannot
see why
people get so worked up about it. But maybe this experience will
help me
understand.

Ditto. Nor why they wouldn't want to *participate*. I.e., what's the
appeal of porn? Watching someone ELSE have a good time?? Huh?? :

Of course, for many sports there is little appeal in participating
unless people are watching. Does anyone actually /like/ playing
American football, or are they all in it for the money, fame,
cheerleaders, etc.?

I imagine there are some -- maybe even some *professionals*!
I have friends who are delighted to play a game of "pickup"
basketball -- even when they don't know any of the other
people that they are playing with!

Some sports can be played for fun, like basketball - for others, I can't
imagine any fun except perhaps in the challenge of beating other people.
Does anyone jump hurdles for fun?

I always thought that /one/ person, /one/ vote was key to democracy, and
thus it is critical for a democratic country to make sure that everyone
who is entitled to vote, can vote exactly once. I also thought that the
same eligibility rules should apply to everyone. It doesn't really
matter whether you allow convicted criminals to vote or not in a
presidential election - but the rules should be the same for all states.

The rules are the same (at least for federal elections). But, the States
are responsible for determining how those rules are enforced, etc.
E.g., how do you determine a voter is a US Citizen?

I would have thought that how the rules are enforced are part of the
rules themselves. Are you telling me the rules for US Citizenship (or
proof of citizenship) vary from state to state, at least in how they are
applied?

When I originally
registered to vote (place of birth), I wasn't asked for ANY ID. Small
town, everyone knows everyone else (though that itself doesn't ensure
my entire family wasn't there "illegally"!).

We have a wackjob (state) politician who wants to legislate "church
attendance"!
http://www.aol.com/article/2015/03/28/arizona-lawmaker-proposes-mandatory-church-attendance/21158854/


Of course, she probably has her own idea as to *which* religious service(s)
would be considered "legally acceptable" for the purpose of the law. No
doubt of the belief that the US was *founded* as a "Christian Nation"
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/15/opinion/sunday/a-christian-nation-since-when.html

And, probably couldn't *name* more than half a dozen religions -- let
alone all
the "variants" on them.

Sort of like the Waitress in Bob's Country Bunker (_The Blues Brothers_)
who's proud that they have *both* kinds of music: country AND western!
:-/

Amusing that she was more concerned with "morality" than, for example,
legislating mandatory *voting* for all citizens!

don't think you could live as a "normal" person in Norway without a
bank card -
your pay (or social security benefits, etc.) are paid into a bank
account. But

Not so, here. I, for example, live largely on a cash basis. Pay each
bill/expense as encountered instead of having to "pay it" with a card...
then, pay off the *card* (with a check), etc. I use (credit) cards only
for large purchases for which I want to avail myself of the extra
protections afforded to credit purchases (which are not available to
*debit* card purchases!). Or, if I need a receipt for tax purposes,
etc.

I am not talking about credit cards - our bank cards are more like
"direct debit" cards. (Of course, people here have credit cards too -
and I use them like you do.) When I buy something in a shop, I put my
card in the terminal, check the price shown, type my pin, and within 3
or 4 seconds the transaction is complete. The money is transferred from
my account to the shop's account. It is much faster than cash, much
safer, far cheaper for the shop (handling cash is expensive and risky).
For the past 10 years or so the cards have had chips - prior to that,
they just had magnetic stripes.

Yes, we have credit and debit cards. Using either and you are met with
the "Credit of debit?" query from the cashier. We also have ATM cards
which
are sometimes dual-purpose (but, *may* have restrictions to JUST be used
with ATM's -- not in regular stores, etc.). And, of course, lots of
individual "store cards" (good only at that store; or, only for products
from that vendor; etc.)

Still mag striped (some store and gift cards have barcodes) -- despite
the propensity for fraud.

Checking accounts tend to have fees associated with them, nowadays. So,
many lower income people can't afford that luxury. Many don't even have
regular bank accounts -- instead, relying on third party check cashing
services to "cash their paychecks" (for a hefty fee).

Since moving to Norway over 20 years ago, I have never had a chequebook.
I can only once remember /seeing/ a cheque, which was a refund from a
Danish holiday company (when we had to cancel the holiday) - I took it
to the bank to pay into my account, and the teller had to ask one of the
older staff members what it was. Baring black-market work (which runs
on cash, like everywhere else), all payment is direct to accounts, and
has been for as long as I have lived here.

I have 5 or 6 credit cards, probably 2 debit cards and 2 or 3 checkbooks.
I've *never* carried a checkbook on my person -- typically used for
"paying bills" from the kitchen table (utilities, credit card balances,
etc.). Debit cards have few protections (vs credit cards) so there's
little reason for me to use those -- anyone who takes a debit card
typically
will take a credit card, as well. Still, rarely use them except for
business purchases so I can generate another receipt (cash register
receipts have magic disappearing ink :> ) for my bookkeeping. Credit
cards are *required* in some cases (e.g., trying to rent a vehicle without
one is an exercise in futility -- indeed, this was my initial motivation
as a teenager for getting them as I traveled a lot for business).

I have one credit card, which I use when I need the extra protection
(such as for online purchases or for occasional big purchases), and one
bank card that works as a VISA debit card, an ATM card (for anywhere in
the world that supports VISA), and a charge card in most shops in most
countries. Everything else is online, and has been for a good many
years - most of my bills come in electronically directly to the bank
(though I still get to choose if and when I pay them), and even those
that come in the post are all handled by online banking. If I am giving
money to other people, it's done online.

Before the days of online banking, we did the bills through forms from
the bank. Bills have an account number on them - we listed them in a
form from the bank along with amounts, dates, etc., handed them in to
the bank, and it all got paid. The idea of writing a cheque and posting
it went out of fashion here long before I moved to Norway over 20 years ago.

Cash "always works" (in the sorts of day-to-day transactions in which I
engage). The real hassle is lack of arithmetic capabilities among
most cashiers: hand them $6.27 for a $6.22 bill and they will invariably
freeze and try to hand you back the "2 pennies": "Just type it in and
let the machine do your thinking FOR you (if you can't understand the
rationale behind my tender)"

Cash no longer "always works" in Norway. Fast food places and shops
that open late often ask to be paid by card only, and may not accept
cash at all - it's the ultimate protection against robbery (except for
muggers looking for pizza...). Shops frequently don't have much change,
because there are simply few people using cash. A fair number of bank
branches no longer handle cash, except for having an ATM. My kid has
just done a sponsored run - the sponsorship money is to be collected
into a bank account, not in cash.

[There was a time I used $2 bills for my purchases -- much handier
than $1, $5, $10 combinations -- but, there is too much novelty
behind that denomination bill... you end up engaged in a discussion
about where you got them, when they last encountered one, etc.]

Exactly. No incentive for the provider to *encourage* consumption
(explicitly or implicitly).

Here, patients tend to demand The Best -- and *do* The Least (for their
own care). I.e., "Don't you have a PILL that I can take? (instead
of exercising, changing my lifestyle, dietary habits, etc.)"

Norwegians can be lazy too - but I think Americans have perfected the
art

Yes. In thought and practice.

You won't regret the time spent.

As I mentioned in another post, a friend has offered to mail me some
DVDs.
Much preferable to "watch" (listen) while working on something else
(this is
how I "consume" most of the movies that I "watch") than to be
bolt-upright
in front of a PC's monitor spending even *more* time "on-line".

I watch these things from an Android pad and a Chromecast - I much
prefer them on the tele than on a pad screen or PC monitor. But if you
can get the DVD's, then that's often better.

I just like to separate the environment that occupies much of my day
for *work* from the environment that I use for "entertainment". It's
sort of like the advice to keep "the bed for sleeping" and not use
it for reading, watching TV, etc. (apparently contributes to insomnia;
body doesn't pick up on the cue to fall asleep!)

 

[Don Y]

On 4/27/2015 6:57 AM, David Brown wrote:

On 27/04/15 12:15, Don Y wrote:
I guess so. I've never been fond of spectator sport - I just cannot
see why
people get so worked up about it. But maybe this experience will
help me
understand.

Ditto. Nor why they wouldn't want to *participate*. I.e., what's the
appeal of porn? Watching someone ELSE have a good time?? Huh?? :

Of course, for many sports there is little appeal in participating
unless people are watching. Does anyone actually /like/ playing
American football, or are they all in it for the money, fame,
cheerleaders, etc.?

I imagine there are some -- maybe even some *professionals*!
I have friends who are delighted to play a game of "pickup"
basketball -- even when they don't know any of the other
people that they are playing with!

Some sports can be played for fun, like basketball - for others, I can't
imagine any fun except perhaps in the challenge of beating other people.

Or, for the challenge of being part of yet another *group*! Reminiscing
about their youth? etc.

> Does anyone jump hurdles for fun?

Hard to imagine. OTOH, I can't understand people who *run* "for fun".
Apparently releases endorphins (there have got to be other ways of
achieving the same high without all the exertion!).

I "walk" (rather quickly) for exercise. It's the sort of thing I can do
without *needing* to involve my brain -- so I can ponder some problem
I'm working on, at the time. Folks who see me invariably comment,
"Wow! You walk *fast*!" My reply? "It's the only way I can get it
OVER WITH quickly!"

I always thought that /one/ person, /one/ vote was key to democracy, and
thus it is critical for a democratic country to make sure that everyone
who is entitled to vote, can vote exactly once. I also thought that the
same eligibility rules should apply to everyone. It doesn't really
matter whether you allow convicted criminals to vote or not in a
presidential election - but the rules should be the same for all states.

The rules are the same (at least for federal elections). But, the States
are responsible for determining how those rules are enforced, etc.
E.g., how do you determine a voter is a US Citizen?

I would have thought that how the rules are enforced are part of the
rules themselves. Are you telling me the rules for US Citizenship (or
proof of citizenship) vary from state to state, at least in how they are
applied?

*Getting* US citizenship is one thing. PROVING it -- for the purpose
of voting -- is left up to the individual states. You can RATIONALIZE
all sorts of discriminatory behaviors under the guise of "protecting the
sanctity of the vote". It's always interesting to see which political
party is more motivated to propose such "restrictions" (yet, they never
have a test for, say, physical fitness -- verifying voters can climb a
set of stairs -- lest it disenfranchise fat, old white men! :> ).

<http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/08/what-does-the-constitution-actually-say-about-voting-rights/278782/>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States>

E.g., historically, *literacy* was a precondition in many places:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test#Voting>

Note the dates involved. You can almost *see* the <wink, wink> in
the text...

Checking accounts tend to have fees associated with them, nowadays. So,
many lower income people can't afford that luxury. Many don't even have
regular bank accounts -- instead, relying on third party check cashing
services to "cash their paychecks" (for a hefty fee).

Since moving to Norway over 20 years ago, I have never had a chequebook.
I can only once remember /seeing/ a cheque, which was a refund from a
Danish holiday company (when we had to cancel the holiday) - I took it
to the bank to pay into my account, and the teller had to ask one of the
older staff members what it was. Baring black-market work (which runs
on cash, like everywhere else), all payment is direct to accounts, and
has been for as long as I have lived here.

I have 5 or 6 credit cards, probably 2 debit cards and 2 or 3 checkbooks.
I've *never* carried a checkbook on my person -- typically used for
"paying bills" from the kitchen table (utilities, credit card balances,
etc.). Debit cards have few protections (vs credit cards) so there's
little reason for me to use those -- anyone who takes a debit card
typically
will take a credit card, as well. Still, rarely use them except for
business purchases so I can generate another receipt (cash register
receipts have magic disappearing ink :> ) for my bookkeeping. Credit
cards are *required* in some cases (e.g., trying to rent a vehicle without
one is an exercise in futility -- indeed, this was my initial motivation
as a teenager for getting them as I traveled a lot for business).

I have one credit card, which I use when I need the extra protection
(such as for online purchases or for occasional big purchases), and one
bank card that works as a VISA debit card, an ATM card (for anywhere in
the world that supports VISA), and a charge card in most shops in most
countries. Everything else is online, and has been for a good many
years - most of my bills come in electronically directly to the bank
(though I still get to choose if and when I pay them), and even those
that come in the post are all handled by online banking. If I am giving
money to other people, it's done online.

Even the bills that we pay "over the phone" are tied to checking accounts.
I often accompany one of my neighbors to one of the larger "membership"
stores (where she has a membership -- and is thus entitled to make
purchases -- but I don't). At the checkout, I'll add up the cost of
the items *I* am purchasing and hand her the cash for those purchases.
Whether she uses cash, credit or debit doesn't matter to me (or her)
as my cash will reimburse her for that outlay on my behalf.

[Would you have to make a person-to-person transfer via electronic device
in that situation?]

Before the days of online banking, we did the bills through forms from
the bank. Bills have an account number on them - we listed them in a
form from the bank along with amounts, dates, etc., handed them in to
the bank, and it all got paid. The idea of writing a cheque and posting
it went out of fashion here long before I moved to Norway over 20 years ago.

Does it *cost* you anything for your bank card? I.e., does your bank
charge a fee to have that account in your name -- even if it doesn't
extend credit to you as a consequence? Are your interactions with it
*entirely* "on-line"? I.e., you access your account to view your
monthly statement (instead of receiving a printed statement in the mail)?
How would the "less fortunate" in your society participate? Does everyone
have the guaranteed right of (free) internet -- and bank account -- access?
(e.g., I dropped one checking account because they wanted to charge me $9
per month for the 1 or 2 transactions that I *might* make... allegedly
to cover "mailing costs" -- for a single sheet of paper representing my
"statement"??)

Cash "always works" (in the sorts of day-to-day transactions in which I
engage). The real hassle is lack of arithmetic capabilities among
most cashiers: hand them $6.27 for a $6.22 bill and they will invariably
freeze and try to hand you back the "2 pennies": "Just type it in and
let the machine do your thinking FOR you (if you can't understand the
rationale behind my tender)"

Cash no longer "always works" in Norway. Fast food places and shops
that open late often ask to be paid by card only, and may not accept
cash at all - it's the ultimate protection against robbery (except for
muggers looking for pizza...). Shops frequently don't have much change,
because there are simply few people using cash. A fair number of bank
branches no longer handle cash, except for having an ATM. My kid has
just done a sponsored run - the sponsorship money is to be collected
into a bank account, not in cash.

I'm not sure you can casually refuse to accept cash. I'm not sure it
is legal to do so (IANAL). And, it could cost you some business.
Until recently (and, AFAIK, this may have been "fixed"), it was not
legal to charge a surcharge for the use of credit cards (predating
debit).

The *legislated* protections for credit cards are much more in the
cardholder's favor than ATM/debit cards. E.g., by law, you can be
liable for any transactions on your ATM/debit card UNTIL YOU REPORT
IT AS MISSING/STOLEN (so, those thieves that *promptly* use the stolen
card -- so they can be rid of it quickly -- are stealing from *you*,
not your bank!)

[the actual rules are more complicated: $50 cap if reported within 2
days of the theft; $500 if reported no later than 60 days after your
statement mailing; no limit after 60 days]

For a credit card, your loss is capped at $50 -- $0 if you report
it prior to the transaction.

I, for example, don't carry my debit cards on my person. They're
safely tucked away at home. In the event of a home burglary, I
would, as a matter of course, contact *all* my financial institutions
and put holds on every account (a thief could just as easily have
stolen bank statements, etc). As I don't typically have much withdrawal
activity on my accounts, it's pretty easy to see if there are *any*
transactions of a suspicious nature.

How would, for example, homeless folks deal with your system?

Time to paint the roof...

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 09:45:24 -0700 (PDT), jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:

"AFAIUI, routine training of some marine mammals involves techniques
that possibly might fall under this legislation. "

What do we have to do to get the gory details on that ?

Google is your friend. Manual stimulation of such animals either
directly or with suitable bits of a cow..

--sp

 

[krw]

On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 09:24:17 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

On 4/27/2015 6:57 AM, David Brown wrote:
On 27/04/15 12:15, Don Y wrote:
I guess so. I've never been fond of spectator sport - I just cannot
see why
people get so worked up about it. But maybe this experience will
help me
understand.

Ditto. Nor why they wouldn't want to *participate*. I.e., what's the
appeal of porn? Watching someone ELSE have a good time?? Huh?? :

Of course, for many sports there is little appeal in participating
unless people are watching. Does anyone actually /like/ playing
American football, or are they all in it for the money, fame,
cheerleaders, etc.?

I imagine there are some -- maybe even some *professionals*!
I have friends who are delighted to play a game of "pickup"
basketball -- even when they don't know any of the other
people that they are playing with!

Some sports can be played for fun, like basketball - for others, I can't
imagine any fun except perhaps in the challenge of beating other people.

Or, for the challenge of being part of yet another *group*! Reminiscing
about their youth? etc.

When we were kids we had pickup football games all the time. Football
is a more complex game than baseball (or soccer <rdh&gt so puckup games
are a lot harder. It really has to be more organized.

Does anyone jump hurdles for fun?

Hard to imagine. OTOH, I can't understand people who *run* "for fun".
Apparently releases endorphins (there have got to be other ways of
achieving the same high without all the exertion!).'

Certainly there are. They're called "drugs" (mostly illegal). They
don't have the same effect on the cardio-vascular system, though.

I "walk" (rather quickly) for exercise. It's the sort of thing I can do
without *needing* to involve my brain -- so I can ponder some problem
I'm working on, at the time. Folks who see me invariably comment,
"Wow! You walk *fast*!" My reply? "It's the only way I can get it
OVER WITH quickly!"

So run! ;-)

I always thought that /one/ person, /one/ vote was key to democracy, and
thus it is critical for a democratic country to make sure that everyone
who is entitled to vote, can vote exactly once. I also thought that the
same eligibility rules should apply to everyone. It doesn't really
matter whether you allow convicted criminals to vote or not in a
presidential election - but the rules should be the same for all states.

The rules are the same (at least for federal elections). But, the States
are responsible for determining how those rules are enforced, etc.
E.g., how do you determine a voter is a US Citizen?

I would have thought that how the rules are enforced are part of the
rules themselves. Are you telling me the rules for US Citizenship (or
proof of citizenship) vary from state to state, at least in how they are
applied?

*Getting* US citizenship is one thing. PROVING it -- for the purpose
of voting -- is left up to the individual states. You can RATIONALIZE
all sorts of discriminatory behaviors under the guise of "protecting the
sanctity of the vote". It's always interesting to see which political
party is more motivated to propose such "restrictions" (yet, they never
have a test for, say, physical fitness -- verifying voters can climb a
set of stairs -- lest it disenfranchise fat, old white men! :> ).

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/08/what-does-the-constitution-actually-say-about-voting-rights/278782/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States

E.g., historically, *literacy* was a precondition in many places:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test#Voting

Note the dates involved. You can almost *see* the <wink, wink> in
the text...

First of all, there is no right to vote in national elections (there
is only one). All voting is a state's enterprise. They decide how
it's done (within the confines of the court decisions and a few laws,
here and there).

Before the days of online banking, we did the bills through forms from
the bank. Bills have an account number on them - we listed them in a
form from the bank along with amounts, dates, etc., handed them in to
the bank, and it all got paid. The idea of writing a cheque and posting
it went out of fashion here long before I moved to Norway over 20 years ago.

I think we only have one bill that's paid by check, anymore.
Everything else is online. I use cash at restaurants and a debit card
most other places. Some still prefer paper checks but online banking
is becoming more popular. The bank my wife used to work at is pretty
barren, these days. Neither of us have been in our bank for over 20
years (it's 1200mi away .

Does it *cost* you anything for your bank card? I.e., does your bank
charge a fee to have that account in your name -- even if it doesn't
extend credit to you as a consequence? Are your interactions with it
*entirely* "on-line"? I.e., you access your account to view your
monthly statement (instead of receiving a printed statement in the mail)?
How would the "less fortunate" in your society participate? Does everyone
have the guaranteed right of (free) internet -- and bank account -- access?
(e.g., I dropped one checking account because they wanted to charge me $9
per month for the 1 or 2 transactions that I *might* make... allegedly
to cover "mailing costs" -- for a single sheet of paper representing my
"statement"??)

Choice is good. The feet are perfectly good voting devices.

Cash "always works" (in the sorts of day-to-day transactions in which I
engage). The real hassle is lack of arithmetic capabilities among
most cashiers: hand them $6.27 for a $6.22 bill and they will invariably
freeze and try to hand you back the "2 pennies": "Just type it in and
let the machine do your thinking FOR you (if you can't understand the
rationale behind my tender)"

Cash no longer "always works" in Norway. Fast food places and shops
that open late often ask to be paid by card only, and may not accept
cash at all - it's the ultimate protection against robbery (except for
muggers looking for pizza...). Shops frequently don't have much change,
because there are simply few people using cash. A fair number of bank
branches no longer handle cash, except for having an ATM. My kid has
just done a sponsored run - the sponsorship money is to be collected
into a bank account, not in cash.

I'm not sure you can casually refuse to accept cash. I'm not sure it
is legal to do so (IANAL). And, it could cost you some business.
Until recently (and, AFAIK, this may have been "fixed"), it was not
legal to charge a surcharge for the use of credit cards (predating
debit).

It is now. Cash is still "legal tender" for debts but it has never
been required for a contract (both have to agree on payment terms).

* protections for credit cards are much more in the

cardholder's favor than ATM/debit cards. E.g., by law, you can be
liable for any transactions on your ATM/debit card UNTIL YOU REPORT
IT AS MISSING/STOLEN (so, those thieves that *promptly* use the stolen
card -- so they can be rid of it quickly -- are stealing from *you*,
not your bank!)

That's not true anymore. Debit cards processed through the credit
clearing houses (VISA, MCard, etc.) *are* protected in the same way as
are credit cards. A debit/ATM card cleared through one of the
national bank clearing houses (NYCE, etc.) are not. IOW, if you don't
use your PIN you have more protections than if you do.

[the actual rules are more complicated: $50 cap if reported within 2
days of the theft; $500 if reported no later than 60 days after your
statement mailing; no limit after 60 days]

Old news.

For a credit card, your loss is capped at $50 -- $0 if you report
it prior to the transaction.

Yes, but that's always waived (VISA, MC, AmEx, etc.). It's not worth
collecting and pisses off the card holder.

I, for example, don't carry my debit cards on my person. They're
safely tucked away at home. In the event of a home burglary, I
would, as a matter of course, contact *all* my financial institutions
and put holds on every account (a thief could just as easily have
stolen bank statements, etc). As I don't typically have much withdrawal
activity on my accounts, it's pretty easy to see if there are *any*
transactions of a suspicious nature.

Everyone has their superstitions. Unless your PIN is compromised, you
have the same protections with your debit card as you do with your
credit cards. The only difference is that it's *your* money that'll
be gone for a few days, not the banks.

How would, for example, homeless folks deal with your system?

Time to paint the roof...

 

[David Brown]

On 27/04/15 18:24, Don Y wrote:

On 4/27/2015 6:57 AM, David Brown wrote:
On 27/04/15 12:15, Don Y wrote:

<snip for brevity>

Even the bills that we pay "over the phone" are tied to checking accounts.
I often accompany one of my neighbors to one of the larger "membership"
stores (where she has a membership -- and is thus entitled to make
purchases -- but I don't). At the checkout, I'll add up the cost of
the items *I* am purchasing and hand her the cash for those purchases.
Whether she uses cash, credit or debit doesn't matter to me (or her)
as my cash will reimburse her for that outlay on my behalf.

[Would you have to make a person-to-person transfer via electronic device
in that situation?]

I certainly /could/ use cash, but for sizeable amounts I would do it
electronically. It's quick and easy - I could do it from my mobile
phone if need be.

Before the days of online banking, we did the bills through forms from
the bank. Bills have an account number on them - we listed them in a
form from the bank along with amounts, dates, etc., handed them in to
the bank, and it all got paid. The idea of writing a cheque and posting
it went out of fashion here long before I moved to Norway over 20
years ago.

Does it *cost* you anything for your bank card? I.e., does your bank
charge a fee to have that account in your name -- even if it doesn't
extend credit to you as a consequence?

There is a small cost. Details vary depending on the type of account,
and the amount you use.

But remember, for most people there is also a small cost to using cash -
the change you lose, the pennies you collect in a jar but never spend,
etc. Shops here prefer cards, even though they pay a percentage to
VISA, Mastercard, the bank, or whoever - it's still cheaper than having
to handle cash.

Are your interactions with it
*entirely* "on-line"? I.e., you access your account to view your
monthly statement (instead of receiving a printed statement in the mail)?

Most regular dealings are online. I visit the bank for financial
advice, adjusting the mortgage, etc. - I prefer the human contact there,
even though most of these can also be handled online.

How would the "less fortunate" in your society participate? Does everyone
have the guaranteed right of (free) internet -- and bank account -- access?

There are /very/ few households without a solid internet connection, and
in those cases they can freely use connected PC's at libraries and other
public places. And even the "least fortunate" people in Norway usually
have a smartphone that will give internet access (it's not free, of
course, but remember that the lowest rung on the economic ladder have
significantly more money in Norway than in the USA. Our range of
incomes is much more compressed than yours).

(e.g., I dropped one checking account because they wanted to charge me $9
per month for the 1 or 2 transactions that I *might* make... allegedly
to cover "mailing costs" -- for a single sheet of paper representing my
"statement"??)

Cash "always works" (in the sorts of day-to-day transactions in which I
engage). The real hassle is lack of arithmetic capabilities among
most cashiers: hand them $6.27 for a $6.22 bill and they will
invariably
freeze and try to hand you back the "2 pennies": "Just type it in and
let the machine do your thinking FOR you (if you can't understand the
rationale behind my tender)"

Cash no longer "always works" in Norway. Fast food places and shops
that open late often ask to be paid by card only, and may not accept
cash at all - it's the ultimate protection against robbery (except for
muggers looking for pizza...). Shops frequently don't have much change,
because there are simply few people using cash. A fair number of bank
branches no longer handle cash, except for having an ATM. My kid has
just done a sponsored run - the sponsorship money is to be collected
into a bank account, not in cash.

I'm not sure you can casually refuse to accept cash. I'm not sure it
is legal to do so (IANAL). And, it could cost you some business.
Until recently (and, AFAIK, this may have been "fixed"), it was not
legal to charge a surcharge for the use of credit cards (predating
debit).

The *legislated* protections for credit cards are much more in the
cardholder's favor than ATM/debit cards. E.g., by law, you can be
liable for any transactions on your ATM/debit card UNTIL YOU REPORT
IT AS MISSING/STOLEN (so, those thieves that *promptly* use the stolen
card -- so they can be rid of it quickly -- are stealing from *you*,
not your bank!)

That's roughly the same here - and part of the reason why shops pay a
higher percentage for credit card purchases compared to debit card
purchases.

[the actual rules are more complicated: $50 cap if reported within 2
days of the theft; $500 if reported no later than 60 days after your
statement mailing; no limit after 60 days]

For a credit card, your loss is capped at $50 -- $0 if you report
it prior to the transaction.

I, for example, don't carry my debit cards on my person. They're
safely tucked away at home. In the event of a home burglary, I
would, as a matter of course, contact *all* my financial institutions
and put holds on every account (a thief could just as easily have
stolen bank statements, etc). As I don't typically have much withdrawal
activity on my accounts, it's pretty easy to see if there are *any*
transactions of a suspicious nature.

How would, for example, homeless folks deal with your system?

To be honest, I don't know - we have a much smaller percentage of
homeless people than you do (it's not a great climate for sleeping out
all year). And a fairly large proportion of homeless people are drug
addicts (we have a surprisingly high drug problem in this country), who
might be less concerned with the details of these things than "ordinary"
people.

Time to paint the roof...

 

[Don Y]

Even the bills that we pay "over the phone" are tied to checking accounts.
I often accompany one of my neighbors to one of the larger "membership"
stores (where she has a membership -- and is thus entitled to make
purchases -- but I don't). At the checkout, I'll add up the cost of
the items *I* am purchasing and hand her the cash for those purchases.
Whether she uses cash, credit or debit doesn't matter to me (or her)
as my cash will reimburse her for that outlay on my behalf.

[Would you have to make a person-to-person transfer via electronic device
in that situation?]

I certainly /could/ use cash, but for sizeable amounts I would do it
electronically. It's quick and easy - I could do it from my mobile phone if
need be.

In the example cited, it's typically ~$50. I don't expect others to "front
me" considerable sums -- even for a few hours (i.e., the time it takes us
to drive back to the neighborhood, unload the car and for me to fetch the
cash for her)!

If I was going to be purchasing hundreds of dollars of supplies, I would
consider it rude *not* to have that much cash on hand at the time of purchase
(so she doesn't have to wonder when she'll get repaid, etc.)

Before the days of online banking, we did the bills through forms from
the bank. Bills have an account number on them - we listed them in a
form from the bank along with amounts, dates, etc., handed them in to
the bank, and it all got paid. The idea of writing a cheque and posting
it went out of fashion here long before I moved to Norway over 20
years ago.

Does it *cost* you anything for your bank card? I.e., does your bank
charge a fee to have that account in your name -- even if it doesn't
extend credit to you as a consequence?

There is a small cost. Details vary depending on the type of account, and the
amount you use.

But remember, for most people there is also a small cost to using cash - the
change you lose, the pennies you collect in a jar but never spend, etc. Shops
here prefer cards, even though they pay a percentage to VISA, Mastercard, the
bank, or whoever - it's still cheaper than having to handle cash.

But, you have to have an *account* in these places. I.e., cash on deposit.
And, those institutions have to be willing to accept "no known address" as
your place of residence (e.g., if you are homeless). And, be *old* enough
to enter into a contractual relationship (one of the groups that I've worked
with deals with homeless teenagers).

Are your interactions with it
*entirely* "on-line"? I.e., you access your account to view your
monthly statement (instead of receiving a printed statement in the mail)?

Most regular dealings are online. I visit the bank for financial advice,
adjusting the mortgage, etc. - I prefer the human contact there, even though
most of these can also be handled online.

I still prefer "by mail" transactions. We regularly have to "enlighten"
financial institutions that information sent via email isn't secure:
"This is to acknowledge your transfer of $135,000 from account
ending in 12345 to account ending in 54321"
with the name of the finacial institution proudly displayed in the
HTML message, etc.

How would the "less fortunate" in your society participate? Does everyone
have the guaranteed right of (free) internet -- and bank account -- access?

There are /very/ few households without a solid internet connection, and in
those cases they can freely use connected PC's at libraries and other public
places. And even the "least fortunate" people in Norway usually have a
smartphone that will give internet access (it's not free, of course, but
remember that the lowest rung on the economic ladder have significantly more
money in Norway than in the USA. Our range of incomes is much more compressed
than yours).

I suspect many/most folks here (even at the bottom of the ladder) have
some form of phone service -- even if subsidized (what the "righties"
would call "Obamaphone" but which actually was a result of that leftwing
whackjob, Reagan -- must have been one of those things he did when the
dementia was taking hold!). But, I don't think it would be "smartphone".

And, libraries aren't present on each streetcorner. So, it's a bus ride
(with attendant wait for the "next bus" -- each way) on top of the
other hurdles they may be facing each day.

I'm not sure you can casually refuse to accept cash. I'm not sure it
is legal to do so (IANAL). And, it could cost you some business.
Until recently (and, AFAIK, this may have been "fixed"), it was not
legal to charge a surcharge for the use of credit cards (predating
debit).

The *legislated* protections for credit cards are much more in the
cardholder's favor than ATM/debit cards. E.g., by law, you can be
liable for any transactions on your ATM/debit card UNTIL YOU REPORT
IT AS MISSING/STOLEN (so, those thieves that *promptly* use the stolen
card -- so they can be rid of it quickly -- are stealing from *you*,
not your bank!)

That's roughly the same here - and part of the reason why shops pay a higher
percentage for credit card purchases compared to debit card purchases.

Given (here) that the cost TO ME for an item purchased with cash, check/debit
or credit card is the same, check/debit poses the most inconvenience/risk: if
I am "mugged", I only lose the cash in my pocket but a checkbook/debit card
opens the floodgates to more of my assets.

[the actual rules are more complicated: $50 cap if reported within 2
days of the theft; $500 if reported no later than 60 days after your
statement mailing; no limit after 60 days]

For a credit card, your loss is capped at $50 -- $0 if you report
it prior to the transaction.

I, for example, don't carry my debit cards on my person. They're
safely tucked away at home. In the event of a home burglary, I
would, as a matter of course, contact *all* my financial institutions
and put holds on every account (a thief could just as easily have
stolen bank statements, etc). As I don't typically have much withdrawal
activity on my accounts, it's pretty easy to see if there are *any*
transactions of a suspicious nature.

How would, for example, homeless folks deal with your system?

To be honest, I don't know - we have a much smaller percentage of homeless
people than you do (it's not a great climate for sleeping out all year).

The opposite, here. I suspect you could get by in a reasonably protected
alcove/entryway even through the few "below freezing" nights each year.
Relying on The Weather to sort out social problems is a bit... "disingenuous?"

And a
fairly large proportion of homeless people are drug addicts (we have a
surprisingly high drug problem in this country), who might be less concerned
with the details of these things than "ordinary" people.

But, presumably they need currency (bank card) to feed their habits?

Why is that (large proportion)? More relaxed laws re: "controlled substances"?
E.g., I've been told Russia has a considerable problem with alcoholism
(though never heard comment on their drug use, etc.)

 

[David Brown]

On 28/04/15 03:35, Don Y wrote:

Even the bills that we pay "over the phone" are tied to checking
accounts.
I often accompany one of my neighbors to one of the larger "membership"
stores (where she has a membership -- and is thus entitled to make
purchases -- but I don't). At the checkout, I'll add up the cost of
the items *I* am purchasing and hand her the cash for those purchases.
Whether she uses cash, credit or debit doesn't matter to me (or her)
as my cash will reimburse her for that outlay on my behalf.

[Would you have to make a person-to-person transfer via electronic
device
in that situation?]

I certainly /could/ use cash, but for sizeable amounts I would do it
electronically. It's quick and easy - I could do it from my mobile
phone if
need be.

In the example cited, it's typically ~$50. I don't expect others to "front
me" considerable sums -- even for a few hours (i.e., the time it takes us
to drive back to the neighborhood, unload the car and for me to fetch the
cash for her)!

If I was going to be purchasing hundreds of dollars of supplies, I would
consider it rude *not* to have that much cash on hand at the time of
purchase
(so she doesn't have to wonder when she'll get repaid, etc.)

I can understand that attitude. In such circumstances, I would expect
we would arrange whatever is most convenient. It would not bother /me/
to pay for everything and get the money back later for a couple of
hundred dollars - but of course we all have limits for that sort of thing.

Before the days of online banking, we did the bills through forms from
the bank. Bills have an account number on them - we listed them in a
form from the bank along with amounts, dates, etc., handed them in to
the bank, and it all got paid. The idea of writing a cheque and
posting
it went out of fashion here long before I moved to Norway over 20
years ago.

Does it *cost* you anything for your bank card? I.e., does your bank
charge a fee to have that account in your name -- even if it doesn't
extend credit to you as a consequence?

There is a small cost. Details vary depending on the type of account,
and the
amount you use.

But remember, for most people there is also a small cost to using cash
- the
change you lose, the pennies you collect in a jar but never spend,
etc. Shops
here prefer cards, even though they pay a percentage to VISA,
Mastercard, the
bank, or whoever - it's still cheaper than having to handle cash.

But, you have to have an *account* in these places. I.e., cash on deposit.
And, those institutions have to be willing to accept "no known address" as
your place of residence (e.g., if you are homeless). And, be *old* enough
to enter into a contractual relationship (one of the groups that I've
worked
with deals with homeless teenagers).

I simply don't have the experience or knowledge of homeless people to be
able to give answers here.

Are your interactions with it
*entirely* "on-line"? I.e., you access your account to view your
monthly statement (instead of receiving a printed statement in the
mail)?

Most regular dealings are online. I visit the bank for financial advice,
adjusting the mortgage, etc. - I prefer the human contact there, even
though
most of these can also be handled online.

I still prefer "by mail" transactions. We regularly have to "enlighten"
financial institutions that information sent via email isn't secure:
"This is to acknowledge your transfer of $135,000 from account
ending in 12345 to account ending in 54321"
with the name of the finacial institution proudly displayed in the
HTML message, etc.

Physical mail is not secure either - not by a /long/ way.

Sensitive bank information is not sent by epost. You access it via the
bank's website (or app, if you prefer a pad/telephone) - and logging
into that requires two-factor authentication. So when someone sends a
bill electronically, I get an email saying that I have a bill from them
- but the details are not in the email.

And paying directly via the bank website is faster, more secure, more
reliable, easier and cheaper than using post.

How would the "less fortunate" in your society participate? Does
everyone
have the guaranteed right of (free) internet -- and bank account --
access?

There are /very/ few households without a solid internet connection,
and in
those cases they can freely use connected PC's at libraries and other
public
places. And even the "least fortunate" people in Norway usually have a
smartphone that will give internet access (it's not free, of course, but
remember that the lowest rung on the economic ladder have
significantly more
money in Norway than in the USA. Our range of incomes is much more
compressed
than yours).

I suspect many/most folks here (even at the bottom of the ladder) have
some form of phone service -- even if subsidized (what the "righties"
would call "Obamaphone" but which actually was a result of that leftwing
whackjob, Reagan -- must have been one of those things he did when the
dementia was taking hold!). But, I don't think it would be "smartphone".

I believe Norway is at or near the top in the use of smartphones. And
despite how long and thin the country is, and how spread out our
population, there is good mobile coverage with solid internet rates
virtually everywhere.

And, libraries aren't present on each streetcorner. So, it's a bus ride
(with attendant wait for the "next bus" -- each way) on top of the
other hurdles they may be facing each day.

We find that for people at the bottom of the ladder (such as new
refugees or asylum seekers who have not yet got established here),
libraries are very popular - and they are the big users of library
computers. The libraries are also often situated near other centres or
services that are helpful to people in that situation.

I'm not sure you can casually refuse to accept cash. I'm not sure it
is legal to do so (IANAL). And, it could cost you some business.
Until recently (and, AFAIK, this may have been "fixed"), it was not
legal to charge a surcharge for the use of credit cards (predating
debit).

The *legislated* protections for credit cards are much more in the
cardholder's favor than ATM/debit cards. E.g., by law, you can be
liable for any transactions on your ATM/debit card UNTIL YOU REPORT
IT AS MISSING/STOLEN (so, those thieves that *promptly* use the stolen
card -- so they can be rid of it quickly -- are stealing from *you*,
not your bank!)

That's roughly the same here - and part of the reason why shops pay a
higher
percentage for credit card purchases compared to debit card purchases.

Given (here) that the cost TO ME for an item purchased with cash,
check/debit
or credit card is the same, check/debit poses the most
inconvenience/risk: if
I am "mugged", I only lose the cash in my pocket but a checkbook/debit card
opens the floodgates to more of my assets.

Personally, I don't see getting mugged as a high risk - certainly not so
high as to inconvenience myself in that sort of a way. And my cards are
of little use without PIN codes (though some criminal gangs work in
teams to peak at someone's PIN code, then steal their cards). Finally,
the "floodgates" are severely limited by the bank (even for debit cards,
and even if you keep your PIN number on a post-it note in your wallet -
though the cap will be higher).

[the actual rules are more complicated: $50 cap if reported within 2
days of the theft; $500 if reported no later than 60 days after your
statement mailing; no limit after 60 days]

For a credit card, your loss is capped at $50 -- $0 if you report
it prior to the transaction.

I, for example, don't carry my debit cards on my person. They're
safely tucked away at home. In the event of a home burglary, I
would, as a matter of course, contact *all* my financial institutions
and put holds on every account (a thief could just as easily have
stolen bank statements, etc). As I don't typically have much withdrawal
activity on my accounts, it's pretty easy to see if there are *any*
transactions of a suspicious nature.

How would, for example, homeless folks deal with your system?

To be honest, I don't know - we have a much smaller percentage of
homeless
people than you do (it's not a great climate for sleeping out all year).

The opposite, here. I suspect you could get by in a reasonably protected
alcove/entryway even through the few "below freezing" nights each year.
Relying on The Weather to sort out social problems is a bit...
"disingenuous?"

We have plenty of social problems in Norway, but there is a great deal
of difference between our countries.

And a
fairly large proportion of homeless people are drug addicts (we have a
surprisingly high drug problem in this country), who might be less
concerned
with the details of these things than "ordinary" people.

But, presumably they need currency (bank card) to feed their habits?

Why is that (large proportion)? More relaxed laws re: "controlled
substances"?

I am not very sure - it's not something I have studied much.

The laws (and the regulations the police have to follow, as well as the
resources they have) are definitely laxer, making it easier to buy or
sell small quantities of lighter drugs. And people here have plenty of
money to spend on such things. (The high price of alcohol may also be
an influence, making it cheaper to get "high" than drunk.)

E.g., I've been told Russia has a considerable problem with alcoholism
(though never heard comment on their drug use, etc.)

That's a cultural thing - alcohol, especially vodka, has always been a
staple part of Russian social life. That's fine in good times, but in
bad times it's easy for people to step over into alcoholism. Russia
also has a lot more problems with other drugs than they used to.

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2015-04-27, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

I always thought that /one/ person, /one/ vote was key to democracy, and
thus it is critical for a democratic country to make sure that everyone
who is entitled to vote, can vote exactly once. I also thought that the
same eligibility rules should apply to everyone. It doesn't really
matter whether you allow convicted criminals to vote or not in a
presidential election - but the rules should be the same for all states.

It probably better if you do allow them, else the government could
stack the vote by prosecuting those who dissagree.

--
umop apisdn

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2015-04-27, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

Even the bills that we pay "over the phone" are tied to checking accounts.
I often accompany one of my neighbors to one of the larger "membership"
stores (where she has a membership -- and is thus entitled to make
purchases -- but I don't). At the checkout, I'll add up the cost of
the items *I* am purchasing and hand her the cash for those purchases.
Whether she uses cash, credit or debit doesn't matter to me (or her)
as my cash will reimburse her for that outlay on my behalf.

[Would you have to make a person-to-person transfer via electronic device
in that situation?]

people are using portable computer terminals with wireless communications
for that purpose (cellphone apps)

--
umop apisdn

 

[Don Y]

I certainly /could/ use cash, but for sizeable amounts I would do it
electronically. It's quick and easy - I could do it from my mobile
phone if
need be.

In the example cited, it's typically ~$50. I don't expect others to "front
me" considerable sums -- even for a few hours (i.e., the time it takes us
to drive back to the neighborhood, unload the car and for me to fetch the
cash for her)!

If I was going to be purchasing hundreds of dollars of supplies, I would
consider it rude *not* to have that much cash on hand at the time of
purchase
(so she doesn't have to wonder when she'll get repaid, etc.)

I can understand that attitude. In such circumstances, I would expect
we would arrange whatever is most convenient. It would not bother /me/
to pay for everything and get the money back later for a couple of
hundred dollars - but of course we all have limits for that sort of thing.

She wouldn't worry if the cash wasn't forthcoming for days or even weeks.
I have pretty "solid" relationships with most folks in the neighborhood,
etc. (e.g., I'm the first to lend a hand when someone needs it -- even if
they've decided they didn't want to "inconvenience anyone" by *asking* for
help).

Rather, it's just a reflection on my own values -- if they extended you the
courtesy, the least you can do is be courteous in your *response*. E.g.,
neighbor across the street gave me a lift to buy a new battery for car.
It's a ~3 mile walk -- not terribly long (but a lot longer when lugging
a car battery in 80+ degree weather). He saved me about 2 hours of
walking/shopping time plus the inconvenience. So, I spent 2 hours baking him
his favorite cookies. Neither of us "made a profit" (as he had to invest
some of *his* time instead of doing whatever he happened to be doing at the
time he "dropped everything" on my behalf). Yet, we're both happier for
the "exchange".

By contrast, I've known folks who'd borrow a "few dollars" and never seem to
remember to return it: "Heck, it was only a few dollars!" Yet, when they
*needed* it, it was obviously worth considerably *more* (to them)!

But remember, for most people there is also a small cost to using cash
- the
change you lose, the pennies you collect in a jar but never spend,
etc. Shops
here prefer cards, even though they pay a percentage to VISA,
Mastercard, the
bank, or whoever - it's still cheaper than having to handle cash.

But, you have to have an *account* in these places. I.e., cash on deposit.
And, those institutions have to be willing to accept "no known address" as
your place of residence (e.g., if you are homeless). And, be *old* enough
to enter into a contractual relationship (one of the groups that I've
worked
with deals with homeless teenagers).

I simply don't have the experience or knowledge of homeless people to be
able to give answers here.

<frown> That's a common problem, here, as well. Yet folks (here)
don't hesitate to make sweeping generalizations about them: "lazy",
"freeloaders", "drug addicts", etc.

Are your interactions with it
*entirely* "on-line"? I.e., you access your account to view your
monthly statement (instead of receiving a printed statement in the
mail)?

Most regular dealings are online. I visit the bank for financial advice,
adjusting the mortgage, etc. - I prefer the human contact there, even
though
most of these can also be handled online.

I still prefer "by mail" transactions. We regularly have to "enlighten"
financial institutions that information sent via email isn't secure:
"This is to acknowledge your transfer of $135,000 from account
ending in 12345 to account ending in 54321"
with the name of the finacial institution proudly displayed in the
HTML message, etc.

Physical mail is not secure either - not by a /long/ way.

Of course not. But, it's not like sending your banking information
on a POSTCARD. E.g., consider how many email services "scan" your
mail -- even those claiming to be looking for spam (or *not*!)

Sensitive bank information is not sent by epost. You access it via the
bank's website (or app, if you prefer a pad/telephone) - and logging
into that requires two-factor authentication. So when someone sends a
bill electronically, I get an email saying that I have a bill from them
- but the details are not in the email.

Not the same, here. The above was a paraphrased email we received,
recently. It leaks a fair bit of information (not enough for *theft*
but surely telling "unwanted eyes" (or transistors) more about our
personal finances than we would *voluntarily* disclose to those other
parties!

And, if you don't provide a valid email address, you are prohibited from
on-line access to your account(s)!

My solution? Call EVERY DAY and talk to a live operator just to query
the current balance, etc. Given that those calls are logged, it won't
take long for them to realize how much the account is *costing* them
simply because of their stupid email policy!

And paying directly via the bank website is faster, more secure, more
reliable, easier and cheaper than using post.

How would the "less fortunate" in your society participate? Does
everyone
have the guaranteed right of (free) internet -- and bank account --
access?

There are /very/ few households without a solid internet connection,
and in
those cases they can freely use connected PC's at libraries and other
public
places. And even the "least fortunate" people in Norway usually have a
smartphone that will give internet access (it's not free, of course, but
remember that the lowest rung on the economic ladder have
significantly more
money in Norway than in the USA. Our range of incomes is much more
compressed
than yours).

I suspect many/most folks here (even at the bottom of the ladder) have
some form of phone service -- even if subsidized (what the "righties"
would call "Obamaphone" but which actually was a result of that leftwing
whackjob, Reagan -- must have been one of those things he did when the
dementia was taking hold!). But, I don't think it would be "smartphone".

I believe Norway is at or near the top in the use of smartphones. And
despite how long and thin the country is, and how spread out our
population, there is good mobile coverage with solid internet rates
virtually everywhere.

From what I understand, most smartphones have limited data plans. [I
don't own a phone (with service) as I tend not to use phones at all]
Perhaps useful for querying bank balances -- but not for the types of
services they want to *pitch* (download music, video, etc.). I find it
distressing to see how tethered to their phones most folks appear to be.
(is this "alert", "text message", "email" or -- gasp -- voice call
really *that* important? Or, is it just some bored person looking for
someone to talk to and settling on *your* number?)

And, libraries aren't present on each streetcorner. So, it's a bus ride
(with attendant wait for the "next bus" -- each way) on top of the
other hurdles they may be facing each day.

We find that for people at the bottom of the ladder (such as new
refugees or asylum seekers who have not yet got established here),
libraries are very popular - and they are the big users of library
computers. The libraries are also often situated near other centres or
services that are helpful to people in that situation.

Libraries, here, are dispersed around the city. E.g., there is one
about 2.5 miles up the road and another about 5 miles in the other
direction. Close enough if you have "transportation". OTOH, if
I had to wait for the bus to take me to the library (the one located
5 miles from here -- no bus service to the closer one!), it would be
about 3/4 mi walk to the bus stop (11 minutes for me) and a 0-30
minute wait for the bus, an 8 minute trip to change to *another* bus,
etc. So, unless you live in walking distance of a library, you're
kinda screwed (I don't know many people who can afford an hour or more
out of their day just to *get* to a computer).

If you happen to own a laptop (homeless??), you can probably find
a coffee shop or other business with semi-free WiFi (it may cost you
a cup of coffee -- or some nasty looks from "legitimate patrons").

[If I know I will need to access inet services while "out", I'll
carry a WiFi enabled phone just for the WiFi capability]

That's roughly the same here - and part of the reason why shops pay a
higher
percentage for credit card purchases compared to debit card purchases.

Given (here) that the cost TO ME for an item purchased with cash,
check/debit
or credit card is the same, check/debit poses the most
inconvenience/risk: if
I am "mugged", I only lose the cash in my pocket but a checkbook/debit card
opens the floodgates to more of my assets.

Personally, I don't see getting mugged as a high risk - certainly not so

It wasn't intended as a typical example; rather, intended to illustrate
the consequences of each type of loss.

I've only once "lost" a credit card -- and did so by leaving it at the
teller's window of an out of state bank into which I had ventured for
some *cash* (on the credit card). It took a few days for me to realize
the loss (given that I was traveling, at the time) and cancel the card.

> high as to inconvenience myself in that sort of a way. And my cards are

I don't see carrying cash + credit cards as an inconvenience. Granted,
if I wanted to purchase a car, it would be problematic. But, if I
wanted to purchase a car, I would remember to bring my checkbook along.

OTOH, I've routinely purchased $10K items with plastic without a
second thought (when I purchased my first 2 PC's -- $8K/ea -- the
salesperson who phoned in to the credit card company was dumbfounded
at their reply: "They didn't even want to *talk* to you! They just
approved the charges, outright!")

of little use without PIN codes (though some criminal gangs work in
teams to peak at someone's PIN code, then steal their cards). Finally,
the "floodgates" are severely limited by the bank (even for debit cards,
and even if you keep your PIN number on a post-it note in your wallet -
though the cap will be higher).

How would, for example, homeless folks deal with your system?

To be honest, I don't know - we have a much smaller percentage of
homeless
people than you do (it's not a great climate for sleeping out all year).

The opposite, here. I suspect you could get by in a reasonably protected
alcove/entryway even through the few "below freezing" nights each year.
Relying on The Weather to sort out social problems is a bit...
"disingenuous?"


We have plenty of social problems in Norway, but there is a great deal
of difference between our countries.

There are no easy answers. Folks who want to dismiss things with triflings
are just choosing to ignore the things they cant understand.

And a
fairly large proportion of homeless people are drug addicts (we have a
surprisingly high drug problem in this country), who might be less
concerned
with the details of these things than "ordinary" people.

But, presumably they need currency (bank card) to feed their habits?

Why is that (large proportion)? More relaxed laws re: "controlled
substances"?

I am not very sure - it's not something I have studied much.

The laws (and the regulations the police have to follow, as well as the
resources they have) are definitely laxer, making it easier to buy or
sell small quantities of lighter drugs. And people here have plenty of
money to spend on such things. (The high price of alcohol may also be
an influence, making it cheaper to get "high" than drunk.)

Do, less "drug related" crime? E.g., addicts stealing to feed their habits?
And, less over-the-top police responses? E.g., SWAT teams raiding homes
of suspected dealers, labs, etc.?

E.g., I've been told Russia has a considerable problem with alcoholism
(though never heard comment on their drug use, etc.)

That's a cultural thing - alcohol, especially vodka, has always been a
staple part of Russian social life.

Dunno as it's never been a real part of my life -- other than a brief
indulgence in college. Most of the drinking that I see is folks
engaged in it (largely) "alone" -- even if in the presence of others.

That's fine in good times, but in
bad times it's easy for people to step over into alcoholism. Russia
also has a lot more problems with other drugs than they used to.

I guess they don't have the catchy slogans -- "Just Say No" -- with
which to address the problem! <rolls eyes>