Your protestation is merely a technical one.

Expand the "point" to a "zone" that accommodates 90% (or more) of passenger vehicles. That zone will most likely be less than 50 feet in length. Bus and truck drivers should already be aware of their unique braking scenarios.

I think what the OP is suggesting is that if you removed the yellow, you could just have a longer period of "all-red" during which people who had already committed to entering the intersection could do so and complete their travel.

So instead of green light -> 4 seconds yellow -> 2 seconds all-red -> another green light, it would just be
green light -> 6 seconds all-red -> another green light.

.... except now Ryobi knows it'll get hosed by a jury out of $1.5 million for every saw they have out there without that business decision.

Which is what the whole article is about.

Forcing Ryobi into a bad business decision because of bad torts is the definition of rent-seeking.

Actually, their cultures pretty much come from the available living areas: Europe's being much smaller developed a lot more competitive means of survival. In America, if one group came and started harassing you, you could move pretty much anywhere to get away from them.

Guns Germs and Steel is a great read. Highly recommended.

Your point only emphasizes the original: Neither one of them was that great. So why is one of them mythologized and one of them demonized?

I think the confusion lies in your bizarre implication that "natural" can only have one meaning, when clearly that's not the case.

Oh, I see, adolf is trolling. Quelle surprise.

Stealing the car isn't the proper analogy. More like you got in a hot rod race with your new spruced up car and it crashed and burned.

If you enjoy your day job, you will probably work for less money than a job you don't enjoy, all other things being equal.

Yes, that's exactly how economics work.

So ... 98 cents more?

1997 called, it wants its site design back.

It does indeed*.

*Guarantee void in Tennessee.

Consented and enjoyed the act? What fucking planet are you living on? He drugged her and she told him no, but was unable to stop him.

The girl testified that she left the Jacuzzi and entered a bedroom in Nicholson's home, where Polanski sat down beside her and kissed the teen, despite her demands that he "keep away." According to Gailey, Polanski then performed a sex act on her and later "started to have intercourse with me." At one point, according to Gailey's testimony, Polanski asked the 13-year-old if she was "on the pill," and "When did you last have your period?" Polanski then asked her, Gailey recalled, "Would you want me to go in through your back?" before he "put his penis in my butt." Asked why she did not more forcefully resist Polanski, the teenager told Deputy D.A. Roger Gunson, "Because I was afraid of him."

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html

Jesus, way to lie to make yourself feel better about sick acts done by adult men on 13 year old girls.

Many states used to make rape a capital offense (Virginia and Louisiana, for example), Louisiana had it on the books as late as 2008 but the Supreme Court overturned it as cruel and unusual.

You are, of course, limiting yourself to the United States, since among the many capital offenses in the world are drug trafficking (Singapore), espionage (Algeria), witchcraft (Central African Republic), sodomy (Mauritania), kidnapping (Uganda), embezzlement and fraud (China), prostitution (North Korea), attempted murder of police (Russia), ... and, yes, rape (Egypt, Guyana, Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Thailand, China, Kuwait, and so on).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_capital_punishment_by_nation

Actually, the whole point of "inalienable" rights as defined by the Declaration were those instilled in us by "the Creator" (the higher power that made humanity exist.) So things like the right to live (and thus the right to eat, drink, breathe), the right to speak freely, the right to travel, the right to work and make use of your labor - these are things that when the word "inalienable" was written meant that they were not man's to give, nor man's to take away.

A lot of that stemmed from the early beginnings of the existential crisis, which at that time boiled down to, I don't have a choice to be created and exist on this earth, so all of my faculties must have some sort of higher purpose that is beyond me, so a life of solitude and selfishness (and nastiness and brutishness and thus shortness) is less ideal than one of community and the "common welfare." So the inalienable rights were declared - rights which were simply above man's pay grade.

Attributing any other meaning to that word, whether trying to shrink it (as you are), or enlarge it (as some more ardent socialists are), is beyond its scope.

We can argue about whether there are inalienable rights, but if you believe that such things exist, then no, there is no right of those around you to murder you in the street.

I mean, we had 500 years of philosophers arguing over these kinds of things, you're not the first to take a stab at it.

Conflating Nickelback and the term "occasionally good" is why the terrorists are winning.