I'm not stopping anybody from re-examining the various acts.

And your statement of the reason behind the DB act is only an opinion. Further, even if an act was created with questionable intentions, it may sometimes be kept or used for other purposes beyond the original. Thus, original intent alone is not a reason to keep or discard an act.

I don't know about your country, in mine it's easy: You rear end someone, you're guilty. Period. There is no good explanation you could possibly give why you couldn't keep enough distance that you had enough time to react and stop your vehicle before slamming into another one.

Actually, there's one exception. If a driver slams on his or her brakes right after making a sudden lane change into your lane, then the accident is almost always the fault of the driver in front. However, without a dashboard camera, you're unlikely to be able to prove that the driver in front did this unless the driver admits fault, which is why this is a very common form of insurance fraud.

Well, thankfully I live in a country where it is virtually impossible to get into the predicament due to the special way our traffic lights work. You know 5 seconds before your green light goes to yellow that it's about to happen.

Actually I have on more than one occasion. Funny enough, never in front of a traffic light.

I don't know about your country, in mine it's easy: You rear end someone, you're guilty. Period. There is no good explanation you could possibly give why you couldn't keep enough distance that you had enough time to react and stop your vehicle before slamming into another one.

I know exactly one case that didn't end like this, and only because the rear-ending car could PROVE that the other one was slamming into him in reverse instead of the other way around.

Aww. You could've taken him for a ride and you let him get off this easily.

I'll invent a tool that allows you to kill people via a phone line. I could see a really HUGE market for something like this.

Yes they do. Scammers, like everyone who runs a business (and scamming is nothing else to them) need to make money with their time. All you have to do to be considered poison to them is to steal their time. That costs your time, too, once or twice, but usually after a few runs they'll never bother you again, simply because you're not worth the time.

Plus, it's fun to screw with them.

Actors who can copy the wooden acting faithfully. And Scotty's son playing Scotty with the same crappy fake Scottish accent.

Because I will slam the brakes to stop. NO matter what. No matter how fast I am. No matter how close the person behind me is. No matter whether I even KNOW that there will be an accident. I will stop instead of running the risk of entering the intersection on a red light. If I get rear ended, his insurance will pay. If I get a ticket, I have to pay.

Safety? It's about money. On BOTH ends of the matter.

Ticket: I have to pay.
Rear ended: His insurance will pay for it.

The choice is obvious. Fuck safety.

Robot treatment shouldn't be our baseline for human treatment. If it's pretty obvious that robots will get incrementally better, then it is as somebody else described it: competing directly with robots (and 3rd world labor) will become a "race to the bottom". That's competing with automation, not leveraging it to make our life better.

As you SHOULD know, you cannot test future accuracy.

Be honest, no matter how much you love your work, would you do it without getting paid for it? I mean, I love IT security, but I would probably rather spend my time tinkering with exploits than wading through ISO guidelines and getting on everyone's nerve with them.

Just explain to me why an artist should be entitled to live off one single creation for the rest of his life while everyone else has to keep working to earn money.

Are you high? NK "take us out"? Where are you, South Korea?

Care to give us an idea how you think NK could "take us out"? I need a good laugh.