You had to google the meaning of agnostic, and then you felt the need to share that with everyone, but you don't have the time to sit around and give money/donation/tithe to the fucking place.

Seriously, please.



-- be seeing you..



This gets modded up now on slashot?

Got to say that the American system which is basically the English system ruined by plea bargaining is one of the worst around.

If I was innocent I'd rather be tried pretty much anywhere else.

I think you're entirely wrong.

A much more likely scenario is that the self driving cars prove statistically to be safer than human driven cars.

At that point expect legislation to ban humans from driving.

Imagine trying to defend yourself in court if you've caused a fatal accident.

'Why did you turn off the computer when you know it is proven to be safer?'

It's not illegal in Belgium, Italy or Spain.

What you meant by 'many EU countries' was in fact France.

Can you list these countries? I call bullshit.

So that if she maims someone she can afford to compensate them

Of course I thought about it. I even referred to it in my original post.

Society has long rehearsed this argument and if you really think you've some up with a new argument you are an idiot.

You are either in the 'No blacks allowed' camp or you are not. I'm not.

That is what you said.

The directive you are implying has changed something for the worse relates to the gender of the applicant for the insurance. Any normal person would infer that you were criticising the directive and therefore approving of the discrmination the directive removed.

You were arguing that not being able to discriminate on the grounds of sex was 'stupid':

I am arguing that the EU directive is not stupid. Not sure any longer what you are now arguing about.

You can always pursue it yourself ...

How to claim compensation

I read and understood your point. You clearly missed mine. Men are more likely to make a claim, I don't dispute that.

Doesn't follow that you should charge a particular man more.

Re read my post, what if blacks make more claims, presumably someone knows if they do or don't but nobody suggest charging people more or less depending on their ethnicity.

Why do you personally deserve to pay less just because you are female?

It's not stupid at all. Would you be happy for insurers to take into account race and sexuality? What if they found that men with big dicks were more dangerous? You want your dick measured so you can get a discount?

It's just the same argument about shops having 'No Blacks' signs in the window, only at a slightly less obviously 'wrong' end of the spectrum.

An insurance company can only go on personal driving history or generalities. This is just a new rule to stop them lumping all members of one group together and discriminating against them.

Well off the top of my head, Insurance Companies can no longer discriminate against you based on your sex.

Actually, as anyone working in IT in the UK can attest, we have very strict rules on what you can do with people's data.

I've spent a whole day at 3 different jobs attending a Data Protection Awareness course.

Companies are also realising that the data they collect isn't quite as valuable as they once thought. That's why the big supermarkets that lead the way on this data mining with their loyalty cards are actually reducing the rewards they offer.

New technology brings new challenges, but to pretend we are slipping towards a 1984 state just betrays your ignorance of history which actually shows that the majority of movement is going towards increased rights.

Magna Carta only applied to the aristocracy at the time remember, and as recently as 1918 women couldn't vote here.