On May 30, 2010, at 6:50 AM, Bob W wrote: >> >> Bob, with all due respect to you and Larry I understood him rather >> differently. He indicated, to the best of my understanding, that there are >> entirely different projects that are more worthy of spending the money on. >> Therefore, as far I understood his logic, this very project did not deserve >> real attention. My opinion is pretty much opposite of his. > > well frankly it doesn't deserve spending money on, unless individual car > owners choose to spend their own money on it. > > It's the parents' responsibility to look after their own children, not the > responsibility of other people. If parents can't look after their own > children properly we already have methods for dealing with it. > > If you're worried about leaving your children in the back of the car, go > ahead and buy a warning device but don't expect me to pay for it. > Of course your argument can be extended. You've already paid for the airbags and seat bels in his car so that he'll be protected in case he hits something. And you've paid for that buzzer that tells him his lights are on, in case he forgets to shut them off. In fact, there are numerous devices in cars, many of them mandated by regulation, that we all pay for. But in the end we don't really pay in full. Implementation of new technology creates jobs. Jobs generate revenue that goes back to the population.
> Bob > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
