n23x

Sure it does. It's an activity that any of the general public can voluntarily participate it (JUST like driving). An activity where ones' actions can potentially affect other individuals, or the activity as a whole. So the point is that the level of risk we allow ourselves to be involved in is relative. Do you support airbags? What about active systems that command control of a vehicle before the human operator can get into trouble? Do you think we should implement any and every device that would mitigate this 'group risk' you describe? .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

An interesting and important question. Generally, my only issue is with seatbelts, though I suppose I wouldn't go as far as child safety seats. Rules regarding general vehicle interaction are certainly acceptable. To a major extent, devices which indicate presence or intent are also acceptable (read: headlights, taillights, signals). My complaint is that every individual has there own acceptable level of risk. I believe that the seatbelt choice (majority of the time) only affects the person wearing or not wearing the seatbelt. I believe that a similar argument might go: When a skydiver dies from a low turn, that death tarnishes skydiving. Skydivers choose to wear helmets that offer negligable impact protection (primarily for aesthetic reasons). If skydivers worn a helmet with suitable impact protection (read: DOT/SNELL motorcycle helmet), I believe a lot less people would be dead (potentially paras/quads though, whatever that's worth to you). Skydivers are being selfish to the sport by not wearing motorcycle helmets. Now lets move on to back protection... Get my drift? .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Data which links secondary accidents to the driver losing control (after the primary incident) due to not being buckled in? Compared to incidents where the person buckled in still had a secondary accident (due to general loss of control)? If you're going to claim 'risk to other drivers' as a reason to wear seatbelts, you need to demonstrate more than a negligable increase in occurance of secondary accidents (which I do not believe you'll find). W/r/t cleanup, I agree, it costs more when someone gets smeared across the highway. I agree that people should wear helmets and seatbelts to reduce chances of brain/bodily injury and death. I simply do not believe it is the government's position to mandate the use of them. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

And who's to say that aliens won't abduct the driver with a teleporter, making the seatbelt irrelevant and the car still crashes along? It's a stupid argument. There is no question that the driver has a better chance on survival/control when they are secured to the driver's seat. The valid means of attack would be if the seat belt has downsides. The airbag can be challenged along these lines - smaller woman are killed by them on occasion, and many people suffer injuries. But with the seat belt, you're limited to incredibly rare times when the person actually benefits from being hurled through a windshield and lands on a stack of hay. Should a car automatically brake if the driver is unconscious? Given the huge number of accidents/deaths caused by sleepy drivers, it would be a positive innovation if it can be done effectively, efficiently. IOW, the Cypres2 of today, not the AAD of 1990. But this too is irrelevant to the reasons for mandating seat belt use. It IS a stupid argument. To suggest that any motivation for seatbelt laws is to prevent additional damage AFTER the initial car accident is retarded. You have absolutely no data to compare secondary accidents, and whether or not the drivers in the primary accident were wearing seat belts. This is 'chicken running around screaming the sky is falling' overreacting bullshit. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Whatever you say, mom. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

What's to say that the person wearing the seatbelt won't be rendered unconscious/dead, and be incapable of stopping the vehicle anyways. I demand an device to monitor for alert/cognizant drivers that default to a motor off/full brakes applied state should an appropriate driver not be found! I'm sorry - your wish to drive only with a seatbelt doesn't override your obligation to drive your multi-ton vehicle in a responsible mannor. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Not being a tubby, overweight piece of shit saves lives too. I demand regulations, please! .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

So your response is, literally: "fuck it, time to smash and grab"? How about grasping for an ounce of respect and just withdrawing from Iraq? .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Of course I saw it, live. I was concerned for the wellbeing of all there. What makes it a "home run"? Care to elaborate on your relative scale, or are you just repeating what you were told (like a terrified, cowering little child)? I know it is your opinion. Those were your feelings that you typed. Feelings do not equal fact, regardless of how foolish you might be. I'll repeat the question: "why are you not ok with the US being labelled the 'bad guy' sometimes" "Just because" is always a stupid answer, typically given by a stupid person. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

I think a significant part of Bush's "philosophy" was to keep that from happening, again. Are you advocating an approach where we wait to let that happen, again? NEVER FORGET that 3,000 American moms and dads died with the approach you seem to be advocating. And there's a HUGE culture out there that wants to kills us simply because we're Americans. And they're not going away. Do you realize that? I don't care to hear any bleeding liberal left winger comments about how the USA are the bad guys. We're not. End of fucking story with that shit. I am literally in awe over this post. Are you as scared for your safety as this post makes you seem? It’s ok if it’s your opinion; I am just amazed to see it come from a real person, and not a satirical piece. Further, why are you not ok with the US being labelled the 'bad guy' sometimes? Average performance is not necessarily a good indicator of current performance. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

There are constantly 'awesome breakthroughs' that promise to be the 'technology of tomorrow, TODAY!'... Until the claimed performance isn't met, or the technology isn't robust or cheap enough to be effectively implemented, etc. It happens a lot. Just think back to the Segway and the claims that it would restructure our cities. edit: Segway was a terrible example. Lots of people bought those things, they just didn't bring the change people said they would. Better example would be the company claiming it can develop panels @ 70cents/watt (who've been claiming it for a long time now, yet nothing comes to fruition). .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

How petty do you have to be to get someone fired for taking GUM. Let's ask this question. Would you want them to be fired if it were a co-worker? What if they were only responsible for taking the gum, and had no relation to the purse? What's your level of clearance at Lockheed (if any). Good god, you sit in a cubicle, you should KNOW better than to leave anything you don't want "borrowed" around. Take a deep breath, and say, "1 2 3, petty shit doesn't need to be so important to me." .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=334&etc .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

http://www.theweekdaily.com/news_opinion/cartoons/44256/the_iran_hive.html .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Probably not a lot of them in Alabama, I imagine. Nobody wants to hang out with a hillbilly whose IQ is 100+ points below their own. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

DAMN YOU ROGER! .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

OH NOESSS!!!1 Bin Ladin is in IRAN! .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Well let's be honest: If they ride a Harley, they're gayer than a tree full of parrots. But that is for another thread for another day. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Alright, I had to ressurect this thread for two points: 1.) Bush Senior uses terrorist gesture! 2.) Holy shit, they literally do not have a brain among them at fox. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

re: non-lethal vs. less-lethal. I thought that tasers had initally been marketed as non-lethal, and then picked up the less-lethal early on in the game. I certainly could be wrong, however. W/r/t the comparsion of tasers to batons and pepper spray, I think there's a little more of a jump. The taser doesn't give you the option of moderating the level of force applied (duration yes), and where it is applied to. It is effectively a go/no go device. (Intention is to shoot at COM, just like a firearm, correct?) The officer wielding the baton can better select the location he chooses to strike with the baton, as well as moderate force applied. Same for pepper spray. While I agree this is likely in most situations, we are seeing an increase in taser-useage that appears to "jump the gun". The way the manufacturer promotes a product/trains with the product could have a direct affect on the way officers choose to use it. Perhaps the difference could be: 1.) I don't want to use this thing unless I would consider shooting the guy with my firearm, because it could be potentially fatal. 2.) "Fuck, this guy is getting on my nerves, I'm gonna give him a little zap because Taser said almost nobody has ever died, and if they did they were cranked up on meth." .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

I kind of look at it this way. Taser marketed the taser as a non-lethal (less lethal) option, which it is now proving not to be. Perhaps something to do with testing on large, healthy people, who weren't experiencing any kind of cardiac stress? While I agree that the officers potentially also share blame, I believe they share LESS blame if they were made to think they were using a non-lethal option, or mislead into the actual possible results of using such a weapon. Things that would be easy to test your product on in a controlled environment: Targets w/ varying weight, sex, age and body build. Things that would be hard/impossible to test your product on in a controlled environment: Targets w/ varying levels of heart issues, local stimulant/drug consumption, stress. I look it like a software engineer who promotes his product as working on all platforms but really, it only works for linux. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Don't sue me, bro! Think this is going to be reversed so that Taser can have an untarnished name, or is Taser going to face a flood of these suits (and potential court losses)? Think Taser is partially responsible for most deaths that occur near or during the use of their product? I wonder if we'll see similar issues with the ADS (active denial system), particularly as portability increases. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

If you buy an item with a credit card, you accumulate debt. If you pay it off in time, you don't need to worry about it. If you don't pay it off in time, you can't just say, "welp, I'm not going to buy anything else". You still have that accumulated debt that needs to be paid off. Reduction in spending is definately a great first start. But we still have a giant credit card bill. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

What comparison for subsidies/tax exemptions within each sector do we have? .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Oh god, I had to... .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC