My mother told it to me as a slightly more pessimistic version: "Assume the other driver is an idiot or a LIAR". That right turn signal? He forgot about it, or will change his mind. It's saved my bacon several times, and the only side effect is that I drive like a timid mouse. :)

I wonder how much the BBC would make if they let non-brits subscribe as well.

You could probably wear an IR LED hat as a countermeasure.

AH, but here's the rub: How do you know that he has lied? There's no way you can trust his information before the Bad Thing happens, because it's unverifiable. And, as cold reading shows us, it's very possible for him to tell you what he thinks you want to hear, once you start hurting him enough that he'll do anything to make it stop.

There's a reason the Inquisition was able to get people to confess to things which were untrue: torture.

I don't care about remembering my own, but I would have loved to have had video records of my dad, or grandparents, when they were younger, talking about their hopes, dreams, fears, jobs, parents, etc. I have stories that my dad tells but they are only the rose-colored few, and my son will nearly never hear them. THat makes them somewhat special, but it also makes me a bit sad that once my dad is gone, so will the stories be.

It's not about memory, it's about family history in a way which has been impossible before now.

Not to mention that signing that would effectively be perjury, which could very well come bite him later when a DIFFERENT bureaucrat looks over the papers.

I'd be more interested in what would happen to Fox's channel if Coulton were to have issued takedown requests on _theirs_.

What would stop him from making Youtube take down requests? If he honestly believes it's infringement, I don't think it's a problem for him to make DMCA takedown requests, and I can only imagine Glee's joy at having their channel shuttered the way others do once they get too many takedown requests. ... wishful thinking, I know.

You'll note also that I was referencing the laws for homicide, meaning that in the hypothetical situation one will have killed the intruder who was assaulting one's family member. In that case, you're going to be more worried about criminal proceedings and less about being sued.

If one ever does get a weapon for home defense, a wise person would get some training on the legal ramifications of using lethal force in one's jurisdiction, and on the very subtle differences in when it is self defense and when it isn't. (e.g.: If they're running away, your life is no longer in danger.)

Reading the No-Nonsense Self Defense site that someone else has linked before is chock-full of very frightening and sobering information, that pretty much makes one want to curl up and hope they are never in a situation where they are attacked, because even if you feel you were acting in self defense, there's a good chance you will have screwed it up. Scary, scary, scary stuff. I highly recommend reading the site.

It's never too late to learn programming. Your pay scale may not be awesome, but if you find that you enjoy it and like learning, there's little to be lost by learning programming.

I believe that the physical labor is part of what drives the satisfaction that smiths find in their work.

Ah yes, the longbow. An elegant weapon for a civilized age. ;)

Can you provide some more information on this? I was under the impression that stopping an assault (including rape) in progress was considered one of the few times where using lethal force is allowed.

CA penal code (section 197) [ http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=187-199 ] seems to indicate that homicide is justifiable when resisting attempts of a person to commit gross bodily harm, or to protect family members from the same.

Shoot, I accidentally modded you overrated. Sorry about that, posting to undo the mistake.