if you can't afford the risk of being injured beyond the other party's ability to pay then you can't afford to drive.
That would be an adequate response if the only damage caused by drivers was to other drivers. It is much less reasonable to tell a pedestrian that if he can't afford to get run over, he can't afford to use crosswalks. The ability to get around on foot must certainly be considered a more fundamental right than the ability to get around in a car while endangering others.
Since it is the driver who introduces risks into the lives of others, it must be the driver who guarantees them restitution in case of damages. On private property, the owner may demand this of drivers. But on public property, the commons demands it.
Except sometimes people are lowlives and they not only don't have the money to cover the damages, but they can't even earn it in a timeframe that works for the victim's medical needs.
I don't mind allowing the stupendously rich to be exempt from liability insurance. But if you're going to share a road with me, you better have proof positive that you can afford to pay me back immediately for an injury, one way or another. If you can't afford it, you can't afford to drive.
Those ones had rubberized membrane buttons though, which are very terrible. If such a thing were implemented with new-style capacitance touchpads, I bet we'd like them better.
Maybe not. That's the point of all this R&D shit, right?
This concept art all looks like my first-year 3d design projects.
Are they developing new plastics that will automatically produce lens-flares against any light source available?
God, I hope so.
That's about as far as any reasonable Internet research would get, if no further context were provided.
Aside from all the plain-english uses of that phrase in other groups (such as Focus On The Family), there are at least three religious and political groups out there calling themselves 'the family' or some variation thereof. If you count apocryphal stories from conspiracy theorists, there may be dozens more.
If you didn't know what that is, then you should look it up.
I should look what up? The Family? Should I Google the word 'family'? That will lead me to a richer understanding of what the hell you're talking about, right?
That's fair. I guess I'd be satisfied if the installer refused to load initially, but suggested that you go disable the driver by hand and then try re-enabling it after the upgrade.
That would at least introduce some barriers for the newbies, without preventing the power users from trying whatever non-standard stuff they want to try.
Not really. If I load a Risky Driver and it makes the system go all jibbly, I got fair warning, and I take it to be my responsibility to remove or upgrade the driver.
I guess it's unrealistic to ask the Windows-using public to take this attitude, but I think it's the fairest.
That's okay with me. Just warn me about the risks and get the hell out of my way.
The point, to me, of those little warning boxes is not to dissuade people from accessing the sites/loading the drivers that they want. The point is just to let the user know that they're now leaving the Supported Zone and entering the shady world of Your Own Discretion.
Slashdot Mirror
it's the 2nd most important comment here (behind 'woot') and must therefore be placed as high on the page as possible, of course.
I would if I had the mod points. That one was certainly non-obvious enough.
if you can't afford the risk of being injured beyond the other party's ability to pay then you can't afford to drive.
That would be an adequate response if the only damage caused by drivers was to other drivers. It is much less reasonable to tell a pedestrian that if he can't afford to get run over, he can't afford to use crosswalks. The ability to get around on foot must certainly be considered a more fundamental right than the ability to get around in a car while endangering others.
Since it is the driver who introduces risks into the lives of others, it must be the driver who guarantees them restitution in case of damages. On private property, the owner may demand this of drivers. But on public property, the commons demands it.
That's what my old roommate used to say.
Fucking ravers.
Except sometimes people are lowlives and they not only don't have the money to cover the damages, but they can't even earn it in a timeframe that works for the victim's medical needs.
I don't mind allowing the stupendously rich to be exempt from liability insurance. But if you're going to share a road with me, you better have proof positive that you can afford to pay me back immediately for an injury, one way or another. If you can't afford it, you can't afford to drive.
I have no mod points, but you, AC, are the star.
Those ones had rubberized membrane buttons though, which are very terrible. If such a thing were implemented with new-style capacitance touchpads, I bet we'd like them better.
Maybe not. That's the point of all this R&D shit, right?
Totally! That site loads flawlessly in IE4. I dunno what all these nerds are arguing about!
Imagine the possibilities for the porn industry. ...And post them here!
This concept art all looks like my first-year 3d design projects. Are they developing new plastics that will automatically produce lens-flares against any light source available? God, I hope so.
100% of my mail relay's incoming mail is now being deleted for non-notability.
You're quite right. I think it was all the tanks and helicopters that fooled me. It's weird what poor people seem to find money for.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_(disambiguation)
That's about as far as any reasonable Internet research would get, if no further context were provided.
Aside from all the plain-english uses of that phrase in other groups (such as Focus On The Family), there are at least three religious and political groups out there calling themselves 'the family' or some variation thereof. If you count apocryphal stories from conspiracy theorists, there may be dozens more.
Man oh man is this group creepy though.
Thanks for the link. What a ridiculous name for a lobby group. How do they get any communicating done at all?
Also socialized medicine scares me as we can't afford it.
You know this is the richest nation in the world we're arguing about, right?
If you didn't know what that is, then you should look it up.
I should look what up? The Family? Should I Google the word 'family'? That will lead me to a richer understanding of what the hell you're talking about, right?
to frustrate grandparent.
B-b-b-but interoperability! Globalization!
Uhh, Iraq war!
I'm sure they can find a CC-licensed piece to use. Appeal to that DIY indie crowd, y'know? It's a big market.
That's fair. I guess I'd be satisfied if the installer refused to load initially, but suggested that you go disable the driver by hand and then try re-enabling it after the upgrade.
That would at least introduce some barriers for the newbies, without preventing the power users from trying whatever non-standard stuff they want to try.
Not really. If I load a Risky Driver and it makes the system go all jibbly, I got fair warning, and I take it to be my responsibility to remove or upgrade the driver. I guess it's unrealistic to ask the Windows-using public to take this attitude, but I think it's the fairest.
That's okay with me. Just warn me about the risks and get the hell out of my way. The point, to me, of those little warning boxes is not to dissuade people from accessing the sites/loading the drivers that they want. The point is just to let the user know that they're now leaving the Supported Zone and entering the shady world of Your Own Discretion.
Or, God forbid, we just ask the user's permission to load a potentially unsafe driver!
Must you be so linear, Jean-Luc?
That would definitely create other problems. You can't possibly be too obtuse to see that.