Ok, I'll chime in. I'm geek, and haven't had problems with women. My wife isn't a geek, but she likes that I'm smart. There are a lot of women out there like that, usually they are smart too.
I have fiber, but not because of crappy Verizon. My city deployed it. And their IP TV is MUCH clearer and better looking then that garbage Comcast was overcompressing the hell out of. Even my wife noticed the difference, EVERY channel is clear and crisp. Comcast only did that for pretty much the HBO and other higher tier channels. This is all with just SD TV as well. DVD quality video from my provider.
This gets us to the fascinating debate about what qualifies as a genetic problem. Does getting fat easily count ? Hyperactivity ? Asperger's syndrome ? And does this only count the problems you actually have, or the ones you could possibly pass on to your descendants ?
Getting fat has nothing to do with genetics. Magazines are filled with people of all ages and races from all backgrounds manage to lose weight and become very fit. Fat is a social problem, brought on by learned bad eating habits. I suspect hyperactivity is the same, although that's likely more a ploy to get kids on drugs which make the drug companies very rich. I don't know much about Asperger's so I won't comment.
Of course you're ignoring the many other diseases, like MS, Downs syndrome and a host of others. These have clear genetic markers and responsible parents should be tested prior to trying to concieve.
No one is free from genetic problems. Every person carries some sort of harmful mutations in their genes. Even if they didn't, some combinations of perfectly ordinary genes are simply not going to work very well together.
Yes, but some genetic problems require lifelong care and suffering from those afflicted. Don't trivialize those diseases. I had a friend with MS. Don't even try equating it to being fat.
No, a reasonable person would conclude that demanding perfection in an imperfect world is unreasonable. Furthermore, he would also remember what became of every previous eugenetics program in history, and snip this one in the bud.
Where did I say someone had to be perfect? I said we should be screening for those we KNOW will have nothing but a life of suffering and dependency on others. Also, I think I said parents should be educated before having kids. Not quite the extreme you're trying to say I'm advocating.
And this is worse than using the government to forcibly sterilize others at gunpoint ?
Where did I say people should be forcibily strelized? Stop trying to frame yoru argument by distorting what I said.
Be thankful for that, otherwise your attempt to equate taxes to armed robbery would be laughed at, especially when it was made in the Internet which was invented and initially built by the US Government using those same tax funds.
Explain how they are different. I guess you think it's ok to steal as long as you do something good with the money, right? So someone could mug me if it meant they'd fed their own family. But what about me trying to feed mine?
But please, do tell how taxes are armed robbery? Because it was made legal? That doesn't change what it is; a large chunk of my income is forcibly taken from me.. and yes, IRS agents do carry guns.
The fact that something good came of taxes doesn't make it right. I wouldn't mind taxes if they were less and paid for the few things that really benefit everyone.
But right now they are paying for a war that doesn't benefit anyone, harrasment of people just trying to travel in their day to day lives, and to cut someone's intestines and most of their stomach out because they can't stop shoving donuts down their fat throat. So please, spare me your "internet was created using tax money" nonsense.
Oh, and since now you expect me to be responsible for your kid's safety, I'm going to remove them from your home and put them in an orphanage. Statistically speaking, you're more likely to sexually molest them than anyone else. So in order to end that, no parent should be allowed to live with their child.
Drivers have the responsibility to pay attention and obey laws. When a crossing guard holds up a "STOP" sign, that is the law. Don't believe me? Hit a crossing guard and see what happens. Crossing guards ARE the right of way. Just like a police man directing traffic, they take precedence over all other traffic signals and signs.
No one said drivers shouldn't be paying attention. Are you willing to bet your kids life on them all paying attention though? Sounds like you are.
Because my kids' lives are more important than you getting to work on time.
Fine. Then teach your kids to properly cross the street. Oh I get it, everyone should bend over backwards to accommodate your lazy parenting. If you really cared about your kids safety, you'd ENSURE IN PERSON they arrive to their school safely, by walking with them or driving them.
As long as you're going to reasonably accommodate drivers, I'm not going to reasonably accommodate you. So I guess I'll just ignore crossing guards and aim for your kids.
Yes; if there's a good chance you'll have a child with a genetic problem you shouldn't be allowed to have children. That's what a reasonable person would do without force of law. The problem is that everyone believes it's their right to have children, whether or not they know they will be healthy, or whether or not they can even take care of the child. I believe parents should be at least forced to undergo eduction on proper nutrition and healthcare.
Otherwise you get what we have now; people using the government to rob other's at gun point to pay for their health care. We shouldn't be 100% logical, but for some reason it seems ok to be 100% emotional.
Its up you to know that cutting your child can harm them. Why do we allow ignorance when it comes to food? It's irrelevant to me whether they mean harm or not; they are doing harm, and they know they are doing harm and they continue to let themselves be "ignorant." Although I'm sure pediatricians have repeatedly told said parents they need to correct their child's weight problem though proper eating and exercise.
If the child can't be trusted to cross properly at a cross walk, how can they be trusted to NOT cross at any other point? That's exactly why I said parents should be walking with them; to ensure the child DOESN'T cross in a section that is unsafe, such as just over the crest of a hill.
Yes, I read it. I never said we needed designated crosswalks at every intersection either. But where they are warranted, the rules for using them should be followed, and they should be reasonable, and not automatically shift the blame to one party no matter what.
The law in many states does mirror that quote. In addition, it points out exactly why we shouldn't give peds blanket right of way no matter what; because it leads to them aggressively crossing the street without thinking of their own safety.
Of course a crossing guard can't just jump out in front of a car when it has no reasonable ability to stop.
Ok, so what's reasonable? Does the crossing guard know all drivers are paying attention? Or that their attention isn't elsewhere due to another vehicle? Does the crossing guard know how well the car can stop (different cars have different abilities to stop)? Does the crossing guard know the reflexes of the driver are adequate? Does the crossing guard know the effect water or snow / ice on the road will have on the cars ability to stop? There's a lot of questions in there. You also now agree with my point; that peds DO have the responsibility to wait, or yield right of way.
However, if a crossing guard is in an intersection telling cars to stop when their light is green, the cars must stop and remain stopped, even though the green light gives that car the "right of way".
And again, why does a crossing guard have that power? They are interrupting normal flow of traffic, which increases risk of an accident. It also increases pollution, because you have cars stopped that would normally be moving, burning gas. In some areas, it may lead to severe traffic congestion. Why should the crossing guard be able to stop traffic when a signal indicates the traffic has the right of way? Can't the peds wait for the next light changing?
That comment was not necessarily directed at you as much as it was to those that think all things meant to keep children safe should be removed.
Well you should have attached it to a post that did advocate removing all things to keep children safe. Although i believe cross walks and right of way rules exist to keep everyone safe, not just children.
The exact opposite of "think of the children" is the "the parent is fully responsible" argument. Both are equally vile.
Why? I didn't have any say in whether a particular person has children or not. I can't do a host of other things to keep them safe, like if the child is obviously being fed poorly and is already severely overweight. I also can't tell an adult not to skydive because there's a large risk to his life there.
Fact is that the best resolution lies somewhere in between. Like the guy said, keep the fence around the pool but teach kids to swim.
I agree; lets start teaching kids how to properly cross the street and not put all of the responsibility on drivers.
It assumes: - The ped won't enter the crosswalk in the case the driver can't or won't stop - The driver can stop (not true; cars all have different stopping power, the road may be wet or slippery due to ice or snow, the brakes could fail) - The driver will stop (again, not true; the driver may assume the ped won't cross because he wouldn't be able to stop in time, the driver may not see the ped on the side of the street for a variety of reasons, the driver may be intoxicated) - The driver will stop, and that other drivers behind him can or will stop in time to stop an accident.
Quite a lot of assumptions when a half ton of plastic and metal is moving toward a human body. Further, the law removes any and all responsibility from the ped that does get hit. Given that the ped can make a choice to enter or wait, why do you force all the responsibility from the ped to the driver? Doesn't the ped have any responsibility whatsoever with regards to his / her own safety? Can you even argue that the ped has any concern for their own safety when they just blindly cross the street?
But pedestrians have the right of way all the time. Most are either too polite or too scared to step into a crosswalk when they don't have a stop sign or light protecting them and a car is coming, but the law is the law.
Fine. Please point me to a state law that explicitly says peds may enter the crosswalk at any time. I suspect this is not the case, especially in areas where peds have a crossing signal. Otherwise, what's the point of said signal?
If they are in the crosswalk, you stop. Goes double if they are kids and a crossing guard escorts them.
No one is debating that you stop once they are in the crosswalk. I fail to see why it's double for a kid vs. an adult.
How many seconds do you really lose by stopping? And why do so many drivers seem to assume that their time is more important than anyone else's?
As you said, the law is the law. Why do peds assume their time is more important than the drivers? How many seconds to they lose by letting the traffic go? Besides, that 100% misses the issue here.
The real issue is safety; no one wants to run over peds, drivers or the peds. Running into the walk at any time assumes it will always be possible for the driver to stop without hitting the peds. That's simply not true. Many factors may limit the drivers ability to stop. Also, stop and go increases costs to the driver and pollution. Everyone wants to reduce pollution, but no one wants to optimize traffic to move as smoothly as possible, which would have an impact. What does it cost the ped to wait? Nothing. And usually, waiting is the law.
When I was in Rome, a friend there told me not to look before crossing the street. Drivers there are used to people darting into the street without looking. If you do look, they know you've seen them, and won't stop.
We're not talking about Rome does, we're talking about what is safest. Running into the street is not safe, no matter what country you're in.
This is how it has been everywhere I have lived; it is ALSO the responsiblity of the pedistrian to ONLY enter the crosswalk when it is safe. That's perfectly reasonable; we expect cars not to plow over peds, and we expect peds not to blindly run into the street at any point, even a crosswalk.
State laws usually say "yield to pedistrians IN crosswalks"; clearly not saying NEXT TO them. The crosswalk is the part of the STREET where peds may cross; it stops at the curb.
He's not saying we should get rid of fences, gates and lifeguards. He's saying that we should ALSO teach our kids to swim in the event that children somehow get around the precautions we set up. I see it this way, it is the parents responsibility to teach their kids to swim. It is the state's responsibility to build fences around pools for the idiot parents who don't and for the kids that have not learned YET.
Where did I say we should remove crosswalks? What I was driving at was that peds ALSO need to be taught how to safely cross the street; in other words, we don't put all of the responsiblity on one person and not the other.
Yes, a child is the parent's responsibility. However, kids occasionally wander from their parents watchful eye. It happens to ALL parents at least once. Does that mean the child deserves to die to teach the parents a lesson? Of course not. So a second level of defense is a good idea for those rare occasions that good parents are not able to watch their kids and for the parents who NEVER watch their kids.
Watchful eye? The only reason I see to have crossing guards is because the the parent has left the child to his / her own devices. If your child doesn't fully understand how to cross the street safely, or why, you probably shouldn't be letting him walk alone.
And pedistrians to have right of way, once they enter the crosswalk. Of course everywhere I've ever lived, they are expected to NOT enter the crosswalk when they see an oncoming car, assuming the car doesn't have something that would cause it to stop prior to reaching the crosswalk.
Not every crosswalk has a stop sign for all lanes of traffic that intersect the walkway.
Hmm, interesting point, certainly something to think about. Perhaps women also tend to, more than anything, even if it means their life is forfeit, protect children. This is then followed by the irrational "if you don't agree with me you don't care about children" line that seems to be shouted at anyone that disagrees.
Well, regarding seatbelts, its a good thing one was able to save you. On the flip side though, 33% of the time there's a fatal accident and some of the occupants wore seatbelts and some didn't, those that did were the one's that died. Everything is the same, except wearing of the seat belt.
Now, take it a step further. You choose to wear your seatbelt and it helped. But why do you feel you have the right to tell someone else they must do so, especially given that a third of the time a seatbelt could kill you, not save you? Take it even further, and why shouldn't I be able to choose if I buy a car with seatbelts or without?
I'm not sure if you agree with my conclusions, based on your post's closing it sounds like you could go either way.
School zones and crosswalks are fine; having crossing guards run out and demand you stop even though you have right of way is not.
I think it's the latter that people are against, not the former. Overall, there seems to be an inclination to always blame the driver in any kind of accident. That's simply not reasonable, but the people doing this are the ones yelling "think of the children!"
Sorry, that doesn't fly. I've had cards Windows doesn't reconize. Windows falls back to a generic driver that works with pretty much everything. Yes, you lose all the acceleration and nice features and probably any decent resolution (can't move from 800x600, IIRC), but the card does in fact display something.
Not a luddite, more like a "who cares?" Zimbra is nothing more than an email / calendering client.. which is the same as Outlook or Evolution, and the other one talks to web services. OHhhhh!! Big deal.
So you end up with an email client that has a scripting language to talk to web services and can view web pages.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, I'll chime in. I'm geek, and haven't had problems with women. My wife isn't a geek, but she likes that I'm smart. There are a lot of women out there like that, usually they are smart too.
Why do you assume advances won't let use move to higher clock speeds and lower voltages? I think the word you're looking for is "parallelizable."
Google searches do not make research. All you proved is that people with problems will post, and those that have working routers don't.
I hate VZ, and don't have their service, but I'm stick of people posting the number of google hits like it means something.
I have fiber, but not because of crappy Verizon. My city deployed it. And their IP TV is MUCH clearer and better looking then that garbage Comcast was overcompressing the hell out of. Even my wife noticed the difference, EVERY channel is clear and crisp. Comcast only did that for pretty much the HBO and other higher tier channels. This is all with just SD TV as well. DVD quality video from my provider.
This gets us to the fascinating debate about what qualifies as a genetic problem. Does getting fat easily count ? Hyperactivity ? Asperger's syndrome ? And does this only count the problems you actually have, or the ones you could possibly pass on to your descendants ?
Getting fat has nothing to do with genetics. Magazines are filled with people of all ages and races from all backgrounds manage to lose weight and become very fit. Fat is a social problem, brought on by learned bad eating habits. I suspect hyperactivity is the same, although that's likely more a ploy to get kids on drugs which make the drug companies very rich. I don't know much about Asperger's so I won't comment.
Of course you're ignoring the many other diseases, like MS, Downs syndrome and a host of others. These have clear genetic markers and responsible parents should be tested prior to trying to concieve.
No one is free from genetic problems. Every person carries some sort of harmful mutations in their genes. Even if they didn't, some combinations of perfectly ordinary genes are simply not going to work very well together.
Yes, but some genetic problems require lifelong care and suffering from those afflicted. Don't trivialize those diseases. I had a friend with MS. Don't even try equating it to being fat.
No, a reasonable person would conclude that demanding perfection in an imperfect world is unreasonable. Furthermore, he would also remember what became of every previous eugenetics program in history, and snip this one in the bud.
Where did I say someone had to be perfect? I said we should be screening for those we KNOW will have nothing but a life of suffering and dependency on others. Also, I think I said parents should be educated before having kids. Not quite the extreme you're trying to say I'm advocating.
And this is worse than using the government to forcibly sterilize others at gunpoint ?
Where did I say people should be forcibily strelized? Stop trying to frame yoru argument by distorting what I said.
Be thankful for that, otherwise your attempt to equate taxes to armed robbery would be laughed at, especially when it was made in the Internet which was invented and initially built by the US Government using those same tax funds.
Explain how they are different. I guess you think it's ok to steal as long as you do something good with the money, right? So someone could mug me if it meant they'd fed their own family. But what about me trying to feed mine?
But please, do tell how taxes are armed robbery? Because it was made legal? That doesn't change what it is; a large chunk of my income is forcibly taken from me.. and yes, IRS agents do carry guns.
The fact that something good came of taxes doesn't make it right. I wouldn't mind taxes if they were less and paid for the few things that really benefit everyone.
But right now they are paying for a war that doesn't benefit anyone, harrasment of people just trying to travel in their day to day lives, and to cut someone's intestines and most of their stomach out because they can't stop shoving donuts down their fat throat. So please, spare me your "internet was created using tax money" nonsense.
Oh, and since now you expect me to be responsible for your kid's safety, I'm going to remove them from your home and put them in an orphanage. Statistically speaking, you're more likely to sexually molest them than anyone else. So in order to end that, no parent should be allowed to live with their child.
Drivers have the responsibility to pay attention and obey laws. When a crossing guard holds up a "STOP" sign, that is the law. Don't believe me? Hit a crossing guard and see what happens. Crossing guards ARE the right of way. Just like a police man directing traffic, they take precedence over all other traffic signals and signs.
No one said drivers shouldn't be paying attention. Are you willing to bet your kids life on them all paying attention though? Sounds like you are.
Because my kids' lives are more important than you getting to work on time.
Fine. Then teach your kids to properly cross the street. Oh I get it, everyone should bend over backwards to accommodate your lazy parenting. If you really cared about your kids safety, you'd ENSURE IN PERSON they arrive to their school safely, by walking with them or driving them.
As long as you're going to reasonably accommodate drivers, I'm not going to reasonably accommodate you. So I guess I'll just ignore crossing guards and aim for your kids.
Yes. Does that mean no one is ever distracted while driving in the UK? Must be nice to live in a country with zero auto accidents.
Yes, the driver should be paying attention. Are you willing to chance your life on that?
Yes; if there's a good chance you'll have a child with a genetic problem you shouldn't be allowed to have children. That's what a reasonable person would do without force of law. The problem is that everyone believes it's their right to have children, whether or not they know they will be healthy, or whether or not they can even take care of the child. I believe parents should be at least forced to undergo eduction on proper nutrition and healthcare.
Otherwise you get what we have now; people using the government to rob other's at gun point to pay for their health care. We shouldn't be 100% logical, but for some reason it seems ok to be 100% emotional.
Its up you to know that cutting your child can harm them. Why do we allow ignorance when it comes to food? It's irrelevant to me whether they mean harm or not; they are doing harm, and they know they are doing harm and they continue to let themselves be "ignorant." Although I'm sure pediatricians have repeatedly told said parents they need to correct their child's weight problem though proper eating and exercise.
If the child can't be trusted to cross properly at a cross walk, how can they be trusted to NOT cross at any other point? That's exactly why I said parents should be walking with them; to ensure the child DOESN'T cross in a section that is unsafe, such as just over the crest of a hill.
Yes, I read it. I never said we needed designated crosswalks at every intersection either. But where they are warranted, the rules for using them should be followed, and they should be reasonable, and not automatically shift the blame to one party no matter what.
The law in many states does mirror that quote. In addition, it points out exactly why we shouldn't give peds blanket right of way no matter what; because it leads to them aggressively crossing the street without thinking of their own safety.
Of course a crossing guard can't just jump out in front of a car when it has no reasonable ability to stop.
Ok, so what's reasonable? Does the crossing guard know all drivers are paying attention? Or that their attention isn't elsewhere due to another vehicle? Does the crossing guard know how well the car can stop (different cars have different abilities to stop)? Does the crossing guard know the reflexes of the driver are adequate? Does the crossing guard know the effect water or snow / ice on the road will have on the cars ability to stop? There's a lot of questions in there. You also now agree with my point; that peds DO have the responsibility to wait, or yield right of way.
However, if a crossing guard is in an intersection telling cars to stop when their light is green, the cars must stop and remain stopped, even though the green light gives that car the "right of way".
And again, why does a crossing guard have that power? They are interrupting normal flow of traffic, which increases risk of an accident. It also increases pollution, because you have cars stopped that would normally be moving, burning gas. In some areas, it may lead to severe traffic congestion. Why should the crossing guard be able to stop traffic when a signal indicates the traffic has the right of way? Can't the peds wait for the next light changing?
That comment was not necessarily directed at you as much as it was to those that think all things meant to keep children safe should be removed.
Well you should have attached it to a post that did advocate removing all things to keep children safe. Although i believe cross walks and right of way rules exist to keep everyone safe, not just children.
The exact opposite of "think of the children" is the "the parent is fully responsible" argument. Both are equally vile.
Why? I didn't have any say in whether a particular person has children or not. I can't do a host of other things to keep them safe, like if the child is obviously being fed poorly and is already severely overweight. I also can't tell an adult not to skydive because there's a large risk to his life there.
Fact is that the best resolution lies somewhere in between. Like the guy said, keep the fence around the pool but teach kids to swim.
I agree; lets start teaching kids how to properly cross the street and not put all of the responsibility on drivers.
Well, the law there is silly.
It assumes:
- The ped won't enter the crosswalk in the case the driver can't or won't stop
- The driver can stop (not true; cars all have different stopping power, the road may be wet or slippery due to ice or snow, the brakes could fail)
- The driver will stop (again, not true; the driver may assume the ped won't cross because he wouldn't be able to stop in time, the driver may not see the ped on the side of the street for a variety of reasons, the driver may be intoxicated)
- The driver will stop, and that other drivers behind him can or will stop in time to stop an accident.
Quite a lot of assumptions when a half ton of plastic and metal is moving toward a human body. Further, the law removes any and all responsibility from the ped that does get hit. Given that the ped can make a choice to enter or wait, why do you force all the responsibility from the ped to the driver? Doesn't the ped have any responsibility whatsoever with regards to his / her own safety? Can you even argue that the ped has any concern for their own safety when they just blindly cross the street?
But pedestrians have the right of way all the time. Most are either too polite or too scared to step into a crosswalk when they don't have a stop sign or light protecting them and a car is coming, but the law is the law.
Fine. Please point me to a state law that explicitly says peds may enter the crosswalk at any time. I suspect this is not the case, especially in areas where peds have a crossing signal. Otherwise, what's the point of said signal?
If they are in the crosswalk, you stop. Goes double if they are kids and a crossing guard escorts them.
No one is debating that you stop once they are in the crosswalk. I fail to see why it's double for a kid vs. an adult.
How many seconds do you really lose by stopping? And why do so many drivers seem to assume that their time is more important than anyone else's?
As you said, the law is the law. Why do peds assume their time is more important than the drivers? How many seconds to they lose by letting the traffic go? Besides, that 100% misses the issue here.
The real issue is safety; no one wants to run over peds, drivers or the peds. Running into the walk at any time assumes it will always be possible for the driver to stop without hitting the peds. That's simply not true. Many factors may limit the drivers ability to stop. Also, stop and go increases costs to the driver and pollution. Everyone wants to reduce pollution, but no one wants to optimize traffic to move as smoothly as possible, which would have an impact. What does it cost the ped to wait? Nothing. And usually, waiting is the law.
When I was in Rome, a friend there told me not to look before crossing the street. Drivers there are used to people darting into the street without looking. If you do look, they know you've seen them, and won't stop.
We're not talking about Rome does, we're talking about what is safest. Running into the street is not safe, no matter what country you're in.
Pedestrians always have the right of way. If a crossing guard runs out and tells you to stop, THEY have the right of way.
No, a crossing guard does NOT have the ability to arbitrarly enter a crosswalk. For example, Washington State has this to say: "Feeling safe, they may aggressively enter crosswalks without proper consideration of approaching traffic in the mistaken belief that the motor vehicle can -- and will -- stop for them. "
This is how it has been everywhere I have lived; it is ALSO the responsiblity of the pedistrian to ONLY enter the crosswalk when it is safe. That's perfectly reasonable; we expect cars not to plow over peds, and we expect peds not to blindly run into the street at any point, even a crosswalk.
State laws usually say "yield to pedistrians IN crosswalks"; clearly not saying NEXT TO them. The crosswalk is the part of the STREET where peds may cross; it stops at the curb.
He's not saying we should get rid of fences, gates and lifeguards. He's saying that we should ALSO teach our kids to swim in the event that children somehow get around the precautions we set up. I see it this way, it is the parents responsibility to teach their kids to swim. It is the state's responsibility to build fences around pools for the idiot parents who don't and for the kids that have not learned YET.
Where did I say we should remove crosswalks? What I was driving at was that peds ALSO need to be taught how to safely cross the street; in other words, we don't put all of the responsiblity on one person and not the other.
Yes, a child is the parent's responsibility. However, kids occasionally wander from their parents watchful eye. It happens to ALL parents at least once. Does that mean the child deserves to die to teach the parents a lesson? Of course not. So a second level of defense is a good idea for those rare occasions that good parents are not able to watch their kids and for the parents who NEVER watch their kids.
Watchful eye? The only reason I see to have crossing guards is because the the parent has left the child to his / her own devices. If your child doesn't fully understand how to cross the street safely, or why, you probably shouldn't be letting him walk alone.
No, I've never hit anyone.
And pedistrians to have right of way, once they enter the crosswalk. Of course everywhere I've ever lived, they are expected to NOT enter the crosswalk when they see an oncoming car, assuming the car doesn't have something that would cause it to stop prior to reaching the crosswalk.
Not every crosswalk has a stop sign for all lanes of traffic that intersect the walkway.
Heh... maybe the UK only now found that article. :-)
Hmm, interesting point, certainly something to think about. Perhaps women also tend to, more than anything, even if it means their life is forfeit, protect children. This is then followed by the irrational "if you don't agree with me you don't care about children" line that seems to be shouted at anyone that disagrees.
Well, regarding seatbelts, its a good thing one was able to save you. On the flip side though, 33% of the time there's a fatal accident and some of the occupants wore seatbelts and some didn't, those that did were the one's that died. Everything is the same, except wearing of the seat belt.
Now, take it a step further. You choose to wear your seatbelt and it helped. But why do you feel you have the right to tell someone else they must do so, especially given that a third of the time a seatbelt could kill you, not save you? Take it even further, and why shouldn't I be able to choose if I buy a car with seatbelts or without?
I'm not sure if you agree with my conclusions, based on your post's closing it sounds like you could go either way.
School zones and crosswalks are fine; having crossing guards run out and demand you stop even though you have right of way is not.
I think it's the latter that people are against, not the former. Overall, there seems to be an inclination to always blame the driver in any kind of accident. That's simply not reasonable, but the people doing this are the ones yelling "think of the children!"
Cutting your child is a crime; why should making them fat and giving them life threatening illnesses be fine?
Well, seems kinda weird to rule anything base on xml due it being "ugly." But then I would suggest you check out BAML.
Sorry, that doesn't fly. I've had cards Windows doesn't reconize. Windows falls back to a generic driver that works with pretty much everything. Yes, you lose all the acceleration and nice features and probably any decent resolution (can't move from 800x600, IIRC), but the card does in fact display something.
NVidia jumped the gun, end of story.
Not a luddite, more like a "who cares?" Zimbra is nothing more than an email / calendering client.. which is the same as Outlook or Evolution, and the other one talks to web services. OHhhhh!! Big deal.
So you end up with an email client that has a scripting language to talk to web services and can view web pages.