No, they were free to practice their religion where they came from, more so than Mormons are able to practice theirs in the US today. They were unable to practice the oppression of their neighbors they wished to. It was the freedom to oppress that they came here for. And we've been saddled with it ever since.

The fires weren't that common in the first place. Reminds me of the Chrysler minivan latch scandal. The latch was inferior, so Chrysler went after the parents of the dead kids for being bad parents of the corpses for not belting them in property. But that didn't go over well. The recall didn't make a huge difference as the number of crashes that it involved was actually small, but they were generally horrific, which is why it got so much attention. Similar to car fires.

Because "people being chauffeured around" represent such a small proportion of rush-hour traffic that basing a decision around this particular concern would be far more emotional than pragmatic.

It's hard to cross a road without ever being in the middle.

And I read a traffic study that demonstrated that 2-3 seconds following distance was the worst distance to follow. Yet that's the recommended range. Closer was more likely to cause a crash, but a lower damage one. Farther was more likely to avoid the crash. The sweet spot for highest probability of the worst crashes was the "recommended" ranges that governments publish. Like so many government studies that show the opposite of "common sense", I found it missing when I went back for it. That one and the one paid for by the US government that showed that smoking pot reduces crash risk.

Nope. Good brakes don't make crashes. Poor braking behavior does.

If your first job teaching is Chemistry, you must have a bachelor's degree in chemistry (aside for the exceptions for those with an education degree and a "minor" in chemistry). Doesn't that count? Then, once you are a certified full teacher, you can teach almost anything after a quick and easy test, that should be passable by any good HS student in that subject. So there's a difference between the first-subject, sole-subject teachers (who must be experts) and those that "got in" under something else, now teach unrelated subjects.

Then I'm an absolute fucking retard. I've studied crashes (like as in crash reconstruction in engineering classes), and someone walking across a median is invisible when two oncoming cars are at the right distance in the right lighting conditions. The pedestrian is illuminated insufficiently compared to the oncoming glare. Yes, even if wearing white (though not if wearing a full yellow retro-reflective suit).

So the invisible object, whether human, animal, or other, is invisible because of the lighting. But if both cars turned off their lights, the object is visible. You can't turn off your lights all the time and end up safer, but if you can turn off the other guy's lights where they hit your eyes, then you can see it.

There's real science in it, and linked to real crashes that killed real people.

That you are an ignorant buffoon doesn't change reality.

You were asked a clear question about your phone. 3 posts later, you still haven't answered. I can only presume because the answer is the opposite of what you are recommending.

The "troll" here was me calling you on a non-answer. Yes, I use my phone with 3 SIMs for 3 continents, 2 non-contract, but the "home" plan is contracted because it gives the best value for the money.

Not in any one item, but requiring a new standardized test to verify quality, but not allocating the money in that law to fund it means that the school will cut education to pay for compliance costs. Do that 100 times, and you've got your factor of three. 1,000 cuts, and all that. Any one seems trivial. But in sum, they are deadly.

I'm saying that if you want to change them, that's the *only* option. I never said it was good. But yes, since it's the only option, it would, by default, be the "best" and the "worst" idea. Waiting 100 years for the shareholders to figure it out without any outside help is not doing anything, and that's the suggestion.

Irrelevant to the question of whether it's under contract.

So everyone should live exactly as you do? No freedom to define things as more or less necessary than you decree? Why do you hate freedom?

So no cell phone contract is a "horrible contract"? Force is irrelevant to whether the contract is bad.

So threatening to shoot someone if they don't hand over their wallet isn't coercion because you are "free" to choose to comply or not. Like in the story above, failure to comply comes with negative side effects, but you ignore those when defining coercion.

So you bought stock in the company, then went to the shareholder meeting? Not buying isn't "voting". At best it's abstaining. And when 90% of the country abstains, the winner only needs 5% of the vote, so abstaining makes the problem worse, not better.

You , sir, are the cause of, not solution to, the problem.