While I generally agree with your points, I take issue with your views on drinking and driving. While it may be true that driving with BAC 0.8-1.0 is as safe as driving with the sniffles, there is a difference of intent.
Do you trust yourself to judge, after you've been drinking, whether you're fit to drive? Do you trust other people? Do you know with certainty your own BAC at any given time after you've been drinking? Lower legal limits are designed to discourage people from taking a chance regarding their fitness to drive, and their BAC. It's erring on the side of caution, with legal enforcement.
I understand if you still think lower legal limits are unnecessary, of course. I just don't think your particular argument against it is valid.
1.) Show me an example of a specific slashdot user who vowed to never again buy another sony product after the rootkit debacle, and now intends on buying a PS1 lcd based on this article. You'll then be free to call that person, and only that person, a hypocrite.
2.) Realize that/. is full of different people with different opinions, and that the opinions of one poster contradicting the opinions of another poster is not a problem at all.
I, for one, would like to see a flamewar between the people who constantly whine about slashdot groupthink, and the people who constantly whine about slashdot being inconsistent. It would be fun to watch;)
CRAP!
Somehow I read "Marquette" as "Montreal", which is even sadder since I'm from Michigan...sorry about that. I'll try to pay more attention in the future.
Contrary to popular belief, Canada is not (yet) a part of the United States, and as such is not subject to our various laws, regulations, and constitutional amendments.
There is, however, the matter of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which does provide freedom of expression. I don't have very much knowledge of the Canadian legal system, but I imagine that it's similar enough to the American one so that, as other replies to your post have pointed out, a private institution can't violate the charter.
Slashdot Mirror
While I generally agree with your points, I take issue with your views on drinking and driving. While it may be true that driving with BAC 0.8-1.0 is as safe as driving with the sniffles, there is a difference of intent.
Do you trust yourself to judge, after you've been drinking, whether you're fit to drive? Do you trust other people? Do you know with certainty your own BAC at any given time after you've been drinking? Lower legal limits are designed to discourage people from taking a chance regarding their fitness to drive, and their BAC. It's erring on the side of caution, with legal enforcement.
I understand if you still think lower legal limits are unnecessary, of course. I just don't think your particular argument against it is valid.
The way I see it, you have two options:
/. is full of different people with different opinions, and that the opinions of one poster contradicting the opinions of another poster is not a problem at all.
;)
1.) Show me an example of a specific slashdot user who vowed to never again buy another sony product after the rootkit debacle, and now intends on buying a PS1 lcd based on this article. You'll then be free to call that person, and only that person, a hypocrite.
2.) Realize that
I, for one, would like to see a flamewar between the people who constantly whine about slashdot groupthink, and the people who constantly whine about slashdot being inconsistent. It would be fun to watch
CRAP! Somehow I read "Marquette" as "Montreal", which is even sadder since I'm from Michigan...sorry about that. I'll try to pay more attention in the future.
Contrary to popular belief, Canada is not (yet) a part of the United States, and as such is not subject to our various laws, regulations, and constitutional amendments.
There is, however, the matter of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which does provide freedom of expression. I don't have very much knowledge of the Canadian legal system, but I imagine that it's similar enough to the American one so that, as other replies to your post have pointed out, a private institution can't violate the charter.