Uhm... that's almost a given event in any plurality voting [masquilier.org] system.
Yes, and its a problem. It works well when there is a clear majority, but it starts to be a problem when you have minorities winning, especially when they can 'rule' the same as if they had a 'majority'. Many nations have a 'minority governments' which more accurately represent the more divided wishes of the people.
Its even less satisfying when it can happen that the person that wins isn't even the one that had the most votes. e.g. When someone with 30% of the votes beats someone with 40% of the votes. (like John Quincy Adams in 1824.)
If it's imperfect and you believe it should be changed, please feel free to argue for that. To claim it is "illegitimate", however, is simply wrong.
I didn't claim it was illegitimate. I specifically noted it was legal.
your understanding is faulty,
Yeah, I misspoke, it doesn't really change anything though.
(vote, cards, dice, drunken brawl, what have you)
Right. And this is precisely the sort of thing that we'd point-and-laugh at other countries for doing as soon as a clear majority can't be established.
how their state's ONE vote shall go. Again, is it perfect? No
I especially like how there could still even be a tie...
I take it you have never studied how the US constitution and election system, in particularly the Electoral College [archives.gov] in which the vote is not a "national popular vote" but 50 separate elections apportioning the votes of 538 representatives to the national ballot.
That doesn't change the fact that he governed while a majority voted against him. The fact that it was legal by the technical rules of the election doesn't change this.
Hell, when you get right down to it, the election rules in the US provide for scenarios where no candidate receives even an electoral majority. If that happens then the House reps each gets a vote, in several states they don't even have to vote for the candidate the people of the state they represent voted for. John Quincy Adams win in 1824, while entirely legal was still... put it this way... if a non-American country were to select its leader like that, the US wouldn't hold back the criticism of its "ridiculous system".
Are you saying we shouldn't be worried about Sweden getting mixed up in "extraordinary rendition" (ie kidnapping) because they were caught doing it?
Personally I take the opposite lesson...they've demonstrated they will do it. They may have learned their lesson... or perhaps the only lesson learned was to try harder so as not to get caught next time.
So anything not explicitly listed as under federal domain, they cannot do?
Actually, yes. That is precisely the intent of the constitution, and it was even further clarified in the 10th amendment. Wikipedia says it well enough:
"The Tenth Amendment explicitly states the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution of the United States are reserved to the states or the people."
What about homeland security?
Yes. Defending the nation, is a power of congress.
Was it in the Constitution that the feds can wiretap peoples homes? I doubt it.
I doubt it to. And its probably why there has been a lot of controversy over it, including charges that it is unconstitutional.
So that means each state decided wiretapping?
It means that the federal government probably broke the law.
Even if the states decided to do it, it would still violate the 4th amendment. States are bound by the constitution just as the federal government is.
What about deciding where citizens can and cannot travel to,
Do you mean that you aren't allowed to travel to Cuba? That would fall under the power to regulate commerce between foreign countries. If you read the rules, its essentially against the law to spend any money there without license to do so, and there are severe limits to what you can spend even if you do have a license to spend money there.
Or do you mean a 'no-fly list'? In which case, many groups (including the ACLU for example) thinks it is unconstitutional.
or setting up the FAA?
In theory each state could manage its own airspace, but some sort of coordination needs to occur between several different states. The federal government is explicitly empowered to regulate commerce between the states, so its fairly reasonable that it be established to fulfill this role.
I doubt all these are explicitly listed.
Thus the constitutionality of many are legitimately in doubt.
No it was fine the first time. "better-it-than-me".
You've never heard the expression "Better him than me." ?
In this case "him" is an "it" ("google goggles"), so its "Better it than me.", as in "better that it have to figure out sudoko, than for me to have to figure out sudoko".
Of course, its possible that the author just messed it up, and meant what you said, but it is hardly self evident that is so.
Firstly, wire transfer != paypal... Wire transfer systems take identities very seriously.
"Companies such as Western Union offer an alternate, anonymous method of wire transfer. Western Union maintains outlets worldwide so that wire transfers can be electrically sent between these outlets. Therefore, you can walk into a Western Union in Arizona, for example, and send 100 US dollars (USD) to the Western Union in the Bahamas simply by paying the Arizona office the cash plus any fees. Your friend in the Bahamas can go to the Western Union to receive the 100 USD in cash within minutes. The money is transferred electronically."
"The lego set in the EMC scenario was stolen and fenced under a fake name (to avoid getting caught)."
Ok, but what exactly is the fraud? He promised them an emc hard drive, and he delivered one. Unless he made the material claim that he was an authorized reseller or something, its hard to see how its fraud.
There's no such thing as "abandonware". You've invented a term that is popular but doesn't actually exist in legal parlance.
Right. In legal paralance, Abandonware is convenient informal shorthand for "software under copyright where the software is no longer readily available for purchase and the copyright holder is not interested in its rights to the software and/or it may not even be known who has the rights to the software."
Consider "Echelon" by Access Software in 1988. Access Software was founded in the 80's by Bruce Carver (who passed away a few years ago now). His company was bought out by Microsoft in 1999; Microsoft was really just interested in the "Links" golf software franchise, and the rest of the company was pretty much ignored. The acquired company was re-branded as "Indie Built" for a while, and then sold to TakeTwo, who ultimately dissolved them.
I'm not even sure who owns the rights to the software. And its entirely likely that none of the companies named above know either. Hell, by the time Microsoft bought them out in 1999 the original title was likely already lost and all but forgotten, and today even the people who might know are long gone from the companies, or even deceased.
The owners of the code in question can really do whatever they want with it. They will not be able to retroactively remove the GPL from previous versions but they can change future versions.
Right. The question is "who is the owner of the code". With GPL code, unless the rights are explicitly handed over to another organization the submitter of the patch retains ownership of that patch. IIRC the linux kernel is copyright the contributors (making changing the license near impossible), while I think the FSF requires you to delegate them copyright... enabling them to change from GPLv2 to GPLv3...again iirc.
So if I create and run GPL project XYZ, and you submit a patch that's accepted without delegating your copyright to me, then I cannot change the license and include that patch unless I get your permission first. And it certainly doesn't matter if the project has been dormant for a 'mere' 10 years.
Now in the case of WinMTR I have no idea if anyone else contributed any code, and whether they delegated the copyright or not. It sounds like, from the CEOs explanation that only one contribution was made, and that the one item that was contributed was backed out... and if that's that's the complete story, then yeah they would be within their rights to change the license. (Albeit at the expense of some goodwill.)
Personally I'd say yes - to my mind, "willing but unable" is more deserving that "unwilling but able"
Fair enough. But "willing but unable" still won't be listed as an organ donor. They don't have a "willing but unable" sticker for your drivers license.
He received a wire transfer of money under a fake name. Doesn't that count?
So if you win an ebay auction from 'legoseller331' and then paypal your payment to 'legoseller331@gmail.com'... and then legoseller331 sends you the lego set described in the auction... criminal wire fraud has taken place? Really?
Says anyone who doesn't instantly understand why its relevant.
You seem to assume that your local government is more trustworthy than the federal government.
And then incorrectly makes a guess as to why its relevant. It has nothing to do with trustworthiness, please play again.
Personally I'd rather have a lower cost federal system than paying ofr it multiple times at the state lever.
Now you are on the right track. There's a lot of things the federal government could theoretically do more efficiently than having each state roll their own but the federal government isn't empowered to do it for some reason...
On the general case, are you on the opinion that english-to-english translation is necessary?
Its already been done... first couple paragraphs...
You wouldn't have heard of me unless you've read a book called The Adventures of Tom Sawyer. But that's okay. Mr. Mark Twain wrote that book, and what he wrote was mostly true. He exaggerated some things, but most of it was true. That's not a big deal. I never met anybody who hasn't lied at one time or another, except for maybe Aunt Polly, the widow, or Mary. Aunt Polly--Tom's Aunt Polly, that is--and Mary and the Widow Douglas are all in that book, which was mostly true, except for some exaggerations, as I said before.
Now at the end of that book, Tom and I had found the money that the robbers hid in the cave. That money made us rich. We got six thousand dollars each, all in gold. It looked awesome when it was all piled up. Well, Judge Thatcher took that money and invested it. It earned each of us a dollar a day for every day of the year, which was more money than we knew what to do with. The Widow Douglas adopted me and said she'd teach me manners, but it was really hard for me to live in her house because she was so prim and proper. When I couldn't stand it any longer, I ran away. I put on my old ratty clothes and hung out in my favorite sugar barrel. I was happy and free again. But then Tom Sawyer found me. He said he was forming a band of robbers and that I could join if I returned to the widow's house and acted respectably. So I went back....
the original text contained in the above excerpt for example "The widow Douglas she took me for her son, and allowed she would sivilize me..." vs "The Widow Douglas adopted me and said she'd teach me manners,..."
I tried my kids on the two texts. One in the 1st grade, the other in the 3rd grade, both reading a bit above their level. In both cases neither correctly understood Twain's sentence. Both understood the 'modern version' perfectly, except for not knowing what a "widow" was. They didn't understand the "she took me for her son" idiom in the first, they didn't know what 'sivilize' was, and they didn't understand the 'and allowed she would' phrasing either, although they knew all of the words.
The original text is WAY to dense with archaic phrasing and word usage for them to make sense of, so yeah, I guess an english-english translation would be necessary for them at their current reading level.
Some of the stuff they couldn't grok at all in just the 1st two paragraphs of the original text:
"I never seen anybody but lied one time or another, without it was Aunt Polly, or the widow, or maybe Mary." ("but lied"? "without it was Aut Polly"...) "Now the way the book winds up..." (didn't know winds up meant ends) "We got six thousand dollars apiece..." (didn't know the word 'apiece') "It was an awful sight of money..." (didn't know what "an awful sight" meant) "he took it and put it out at interest, and it fetched us a dollar a day apiece..." ("put it out at interest" although they know what interest means from a savings account sense) "more than a body could tell what to do with"... ("a body" ?) "when I couldn't stand it no longer I lit out" (double negative, "lit out"...) "I got into my old rags and my sugar-hogshead again"... (sugar hogshead?)...
Even I understood "lit out" more as "got upset" not "ran away". And I had to look up 'sugar-hogshead'.
Do *I* think a translation is necessary? For me to read and grok... no... although I apparently could use some notes. For a grade school kid? Yeah, I'd say at least young ones probably do need a translation, and I'm not convinced the above rendition is "evil incarnate" especially as the original is still readily available. It's a lot more accessible for kids to put the book into modern english.
Granted it has less "flavor" and that loss is definitely felt... I'd hate for the above to be the only edit
Ok... so who is doing that? Name names please. Also explain why they weren't charged with first-degree murder like any other time a person knowingly and premeditatively causes the death of another. I dare you. Back your point up or admit you're full of shit. Pick one, coward.
Nobody did it with pintos. The pintos were brought up as an analogy to the slot machine defects (the subject of this article). And in the slot machine article someone HAD gone around to hundreds of the defective machines deliberately to exploit the flaw.
So comparing fords liability with pintos to the casinos liability with the slot machines needs to also have a similiar actor deliberately exploiting the flaw for the analogy to work.
The Pinto had a design fault in that the fuel tank wasn't well protected from rear-end crashes. The manufacturer was found liable for *any* damages caused by that fault, independent of what caused the accident.
Ford had to have protected better the fuel tank, no matter what. They could not claim that the accident wouldn't have occurred if one of the drivers involved had been more careful.
I don't disagree.
The conclusion was that accidents happen and the manufacturer had the responsibility to take that into account, no matter what caused the accident.
Again I don't disagree.
But when someone buys 100s of them and deliberately blows them up its not an accident anymore, and those cars clearly shouldn't be solely fords liability.
1. Here's the lesson you should set out to teach. In which the contrast between the derogatory use of nigger and the acts depicted in the story has everything to do with the story.
It really had nothing to do with the "derogatory USE of the word nigger" it had to do with the fact that he was an unimportant black slave. You can easily tell the story without calling him a nigger. In fact, its already been done several times. They've made about a dozen Huckleberry Finn movies, and translated the book to many other languages. "nigger" rarely got through.
2. As for your attempt to reference the intentions/motives of the author... by the very words of the author in the opening of the book, you should be prosecuted, banished or shot.
The same excerpt applies to you for telling me what lesson I should set out to teach.
But please stop imposing your forced "politically correct" approximation of what the art of painting should be to other people that like paiting or, worse, cripple the kids that may like painting in the future (would they be exposed to what really painting means).
I guess all the foreign language translations and film adaptations must really piss you off then.
There was a fault in the system, the result of incomplete testing by incompetent programmers. That's what happens when you hire the lowest degree of people, instead of paying the wages required by competent people.
Virtually all testing is incomplete, especially for simple consumer oriented stuff. And even competent programmers still make errors.
Why should software be exempt from the liability that car manufacturers face?
No one said it should be exempt. But if you buy a bunch of Pinto's KNOWING of the flaw, and then deliberately crash them into things to try and make them explode so that you can sue the manufacturer... why exactly should you be exempt from liability?
Slashdot Mirror
Uhm... that's almost a given event in any plurality voting [masquilier.org] system.
Yes, and its a problem. It works well when there is a clear majority, but it starts to be a problem when you have minorities winning, especially when they can 'rule' the same as if they had a 'majority'. Many nations have a 'minority governments' which more accurately represent the more divided wishes of the people.
Its even less satisfying when it can happen that the person that wins isn't even the one that had the most votes. e.g. When someone with 30% of the votes beats someone with 40% of the votes. (like John Quincy Adams in 1824.)
If it's imperfect and you believe it should be changed, please feel free to argue for that. To claim it is "illegitimate", however, is simply wrong.
I didn't claim it was illegitimate. I specifically noted it was legal.
your understanding is faulty,
Yeah, I misspoke, it doesn't really change anything though.
(vote, cards, dice, drunken brawl, what have you)
Right. And this is precisely the sort of thing that we'd point-and-laugh at other countries for doing as soon as a clear majority can't be established.
how their state's ONE vote shall go. Again, is it perfect? No
I especially like how there could still even be a tie...
I take it you have never studied how the US constitution and election system, in particularly the Electoral College [archives.gov] in which the vote is not a "national popular vote" but 50 separate elections apportioning the votes of 538 representatives to the national ballot.
That doesn't change the fact that he governed while a majority voted against him. The fact that it was legal by the technical rules of the election doesn't change this.
Hell, when you get right down to it, the election rules in the US provide for scenarios where no candidate receives even an electoral majority. If that happens then the House reps each gets a vote, in several states they don't even have to vote for the candidate the people of the state they represent voted for. John Quincy Adams win in 1824, while entirely legal was still ... put it this way... if a non-American country were to select its leader like that, the US wouldn't hold back the criticism of its "ridiculous system".
I'm a bit confused.
Are you saying we shouldn't be worried about Sweden getting mixed up in "extraordinary rendition" (ie kidnapping) because they were caught doing it?
Personally I take the opposite lesson...they've demonstrated they will do it. They may have learned their lesson... or perhaps the only lesson learned was to try harder so as not to get caught next time.
So anything not explicitly listed as under federal domain, they cannot do?
Actually, yes. That is precisely the intent of the constitution, and it was even further clarified in the 10th amendment. Wikipedia says it well enough:
"The Tenth Amendment explicitly states the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution of the United States are reserved to the states or the people."
What about homeland security?
Yes. Defending the nation, is a power of congress.
Was it in the Constitution that the feds can wiretap peoples homes? I doubt it.
I doubt it to. And its probably why there has been a lot of controversy over it, including charges that it is unconstitutional.
So that means each state decided wiretapping?
It means that the federal government probably broke the law.
Even if the states decided to do it, it would still violate the 4th amendment. States are bound by the constitution just as the federal government is.
What about deciding where citizens can and cannot travel to,
Do you mean that you aren't allowed to travel to Cuba? That would fall under the power to regulate commerce between foreign countries. If you read the rules, its essentially against the law to spend any money there without license to do so, and there are severe limits to what you can spend even if you do have a license to spend money there.
Or do you mean a 'no-fly list'? In which case, many groups (including the ACLU for example) thinks it is unconstitutional.
or setting up the FAA?
In theory each state could manage its own airspace, but some sort of coordination needs to occur between several different states. The federal government is explicitly empowered to regulate commerce between the states, so its fairly reasonable that it be established to fulfill this role.
I doubt all these are explicitly listed.
Thus the constitutionality of many are legitimately in doubt.
solved by humans for free.
solved by humans in exchange for porn. Not free. Close enough to free though. :)
No it was fine the first time. "better-it-than-me".
You've never heard the expression "Better him than me." ?
In this case "him" is an "it" ("google goggles"), so its "Better it than me.", as in "better that it have to figure out sudoko, than for me to have to figure out sudoko".
Of course, its possible that the author just messed it up, and meant what you said, but it is hardly self evident that is so.
The constitution says the federal government can help setup guidelines for a service provided privately? Really? Please show me where..
Really? Is THAT what you think I said? You'll find I said the exact opposite.
The constitution delegates specific powers to the federal government, and reserves everything else for the state governments.
Firstly, wire transfer != paypal... Wire transfer systems take identities very seriously.
"Companies such as Western Union offer an alternate, anonymous method of wire transfer. Western Union maintains outlets worldwide so that wire transfers can be electrically sent between these outlets. Therefore, you can walk into a Western Union in Arizona, for example, and send 100 US dollars (USD) to the Western Union in the Bahamas simply by paying the Arizona office the cash plus any fees. Your friend in the Bahamas can go to the Western Union to receive the 100 USD in cash within minutes. The money is transferred electronically."
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-wire-transfer.htm
very very seriously. ;)
"The lego set in the EMC scenario was stolen and fenced under a fake name (to avoid getting caught)."
Ok, but what exactly is the fraud? He promised them an emc hard drive, and he delivered one. Unless he made the material claim that he was an authorized reseller or something, its hard to see how its fraud.
There's no such thing as "abandonware". You've invented a term that is popular but doesn't actually exist in legal parlance.
Right. In legal paralance, Abandonware is convenient informal shorthand for "software under copyright where the software is no longer readily available for purchase and the copyright holder is not interested in its rights to the software and/or it may not even be known who has the rights to the software."
Consider "Echelon" by Access Software in 1988. Access Software was founded in the 80's by Bruce Carver (who passed away a few years ago now). His company was bought out by Microsoft in 1999; Microsoft was really just interested in the "Links" golf software franchise, and the rest of the company was pretty much ignored. The acquired company was re-branded as "Indie Built" for a while, and then sold to TakeTwo, who ultimately dissolved them.
I'm not even sure who owns the rights to the software. And its entirely likely that none of the companies named above know either. Hell, by the time Microsoft bought them out in 1999 the original title was likely already lost and all but forgotten, and today even the people who might know are long gone from the companies, or even deceased.
The owners of the code in question can really do whatever they want with it. They will not be able to retroactively remove the GPL from previous versions but they can change future versions.
Right. The question is "who is the owner of the code". With GPL code, unless the rights are explicitly handed over to another organization the submitter of the patch retains ownership of that patch. IIRC the linux kernel is copyright the contributors (making changing the license near impossible), while I think the FSF requires you to delegate them copyright... enabling them to change from GPLv2 to GPLv3...again iirc.
So if I create and run GPL project XYZ, and you submit a patch that's accepted without delegating your copyright to me, then I cannot change the license and include that patch unless I get your permission first. And it certainly doesn't matter if the project has been dormant for a 'mere' 10 years.
Now in the case of WinMTR I have no idea if anyone else contributed any code, and whether they delegated the copyright or not. It sounds like, from the CEOs explanation that only one contribution was made, and that the one item that was contributed was backed out... and if that's that's the complete story, then yeah they would be within their rights to change the license. (Albeit at the expense of some goodwill.)
Personally I'd say yes - to my mind, "willing but unable" is more deserving that "unwilling but able"
Fair enough. But "willing but unable" still won't be listed as an organ donor. They don't have a "willing but unable" sticker for your drivers license.
That attitude is the *ONLY* reason people prefer local over federal.
Its *ALSO* a constitutional issue. The state governments are empowered to implement stuff like this, but the federal government isn't.
Exactly. Just as to be an organ recipient, you should be listed as an organ donor.
Even if you have aids? Or any of a gazillion other conditions that would make donating organs a bad idea?
He received a wire transfer of money under a fake name. Doesn't that count?
So if you win an ebay auction from 'legoseller331' and then paypal your payment to 'legoseller331@gmail.com'... and then legoseller331 sends you the lego set described in the auction... criminal wire fraud has taken place? Really?
Irrelevant.
Says anyone who doesn't instantly understand why its relevant.
You seem to assume that your local government is more trustworthy than the federal government.
And then incorrectly makes a guess as to why its relevant. It has nothing to do with trustworthiness, please play again.
Personally I'd rather have a lower cost federal system than paying ofr it multiple times at the state lever.
Now you are on the right track. There's a lot of things the federal government could theoretically do more efficiently than having each state roll their own but the federal government isn't empowered to do it for some reason...
heh, probably... although something like JNK would probably be more reliable.
If I were you, I'd put the year-end bonus in a 6-mo CD, and get the tablet when the CD's term is up
Waiting 6 months might well be sensible. But the average CD yield is 0.63% (APR). So... $1000 in a 6 month CD will net him under $3.50.
Besides, you've just admitted that a driver's license *is* an ID card- an identity document required to participate in a civic duty. Next!
Your right of course, but a drivers license is a state document, not a federal one. This seemingly unimportant distinction is actually quite huge.
On the general case, are you on the opinion that english-to-english translation is necessary?
Its already been done... first couple paragraphs...
the original text contained in the above excerpt for example "The widow Douglas she took me for her son, and allowed she would sivilize me..." vs "The Widow Douglas adopted me and said she'd teach me manners,..."
I tried my kids on the two texts. One in the 1st grade, the other in the 3rd grade, both reading a bit above their level. In both cases neither correctly understood Twain's sentence. Both understood the 'modern version' perfectly, except for not knowing what a "widow" was. They didn't understand the "she took me for her son" idiom in the first, they didn't know what 'sivilize' was, and they didn't understand the 'and allowed she would' phrasing either, although they knew all of the words.
The original text is WAY to dense with archaic phrasing and word usage for them to make sense of, so yeah, I guess an english-english translation would be necessary for them at their current reading level.
Some of the stuff they couldn't grok at all in just the 1st two paragraphs of the original text:
"I never seen anybody but lied one time or another, without it was Aunt Polly, or the widow, or maybe Mary." ("but lied"? "without it was Aut Polly"...) ... ("a body" ?) ...
"Now the way the book winds up..." (didn't know winds up meant ends)
"We got six thousand dollars apiece..." (didn't know the word 'apiece')
"It was an awful sight of money..." (didn't know what "an awful sight" meant)
"he took it and put it out at interest, and it fetched us a dollar a day apiece..." ("put it out at interest" although they know what interest means from a savings account sense)
"more than a body could tell what to do with"
"when I couldn't stand it no longer I lit out" (double negative, "lit out"...)
"I got into my old rags and my sugar-hogshead again"... (sugar hogshead?)
Even I understood "lit out" more as "got upset" not "ran away". And I had to look up 'sugar-hogshead'.
Do *I* think a translation is necessary? For me to read and grok... no... although I apparently could use some notes. For a grade school kid? Yeah, I'd say at least young ones probably do need a translation, and I'm not convinced the above rendition is "evil incarnate" especially as the original is still readily available. It's a lot more accessible for kids to put the book into modern english.
Granted it has less "flavor" and that loss is definitely felt... I'd hate for the above to be the only edit
Good luck with that... it's been tried many different ways and has never been sustainable.
For what its worth, the status quo hasn't been proven sustainable either.
I personally think that if we didn't have modern corporate globalisation and someone "proposed it", only a sociopath would think it was a good idea.
Why switch? We and 500 million others.
To get away from them all?
Ok ... so who is doing that? Name names please. Also explain why they weren't charged with first-degree murder like any other time a person knowingly and premeditatively causes the death of another. I dare you. Back your point up or admit you're full of shit. Pick one, coward.
Nobody did it with pintos.
The pintos were brought up as an analogy to the slot machine defects (the subject of this article). And in the slot machine article someone HAD gone around to hundreds of the defective machines deliberately to exploit the flaw.
So comparing fords liability with pintos to the casinos liability with the slot machines needs to also have a similiar actor deliberately exploiting the flaw for the analogy to work.
The Pinto had a design fault in that the fuel tank wasn't well protected from rear-end crashes. The manufacturer was found liable for *any* damages caused by that fault, independent of what caused the accident.
Ford had to have protected better the fuel tank, no matter what. They could not claim that the accident wouldn't have occurred if one of the drivers involved had been more careful.
I don't disagree.
The conclusion was that accidents happen and the manufacturer had the responsibility to take that into account, no matter what caused the accident.
Again I don't disagree.
But when someone buys 100s of them and deliberately blows them up its not an accident anymore, and those cars clearly shouldn't be solely fords liability.
1. Here's the lesson you should set out to teach. In which the contrast between the derogatory use of nigger and the acts depicted in the story has everything to do with the story.
It really had nothing to do with the "derogatory USE of the word nigger" it had to do with the fact that he was an unimportant black slave. You can easily tell the story without calling him a nigger. In fact, its already been done several times. They've made about a dozen Huckleberry Finn movies, and translated the book to many other languages. "nigger" rarely got through.
2. As for your attempt to reference the intentions/motives of the author... by the very words of the author in the opening of the book, you should be prosecuted, banished or shot.
The same excerpt applies to you for telling me what lesson I should set out to teach.
But please stop imposing your forced "politically correct" approximation of what the art of painting should be to other people that like paiting or, worse, cripple the kids that may like painting in the future (would they be exposed to what really painting means).
I guess all the foreign language translations and film adaptations must really piss you off then.
There was a fault in the system, the result of incomplete testing by incompetent programmers. That's what happens when you hire the lowest degree of people, instead of paying the wages required by competent people.
Virtually all testing is incomplete, especially for simple consumer oriented stuff. And even competent programmers still make errors.
Why should software be exempt from the liability that car manufacturers face?
No one said it should be exempt. But if you buy a bunch of Pinto's KNOWING of the flaw, and then deliberately crash them into things to try and make them explode so that you can sue the manufacturer... why exactly should you be exempt from liability?