That's because they aren't true roundabouts and aren't treated as such legally.

We had one in our town. I treated it as a roundabout. I got a ticket for failing to yield to someone who was waiting to enter from a street to my right. That's right -- traffic in the circle was expected to yield to traffic waiting to enter the circle.

All of that being true, there is still no "right to know" when applied to "everything that everyone in the government knows". For example, there is no "right to know" that the ambassador from some certain country is a dick and the best way to deal with him is to scratch his back a lot before asking for anything. What do you learn from that, and what does it benefit you to know? On the other hand, the idea that he's a dick is really counterproductive to future negotiations but is good to know so those negotiations can be productive.

And that kind of information is some of the really secret stuff that we all had a "right to know" from the Wikileaks documents.

You're really trying to argue that government run competition is how you create a "free market"? Really?

No, it just shows that when you remove the requirement for prices to cover costs and yield a profit, governments can do what private companies cannot. If the existing telecom could cover any operating losses by just dipping into the taxpayer general fund, you'd see prices go way down -- covered by taxes, of course.

And that is what makes government competing with existing private companies wrong. It isn't fair in any sense of the word, and the private companies, even if the courts say they are free to compete if they want to, have no way they'll make any return on their investment. I mean, existing markets are already defacto monopolies (not dejure) because even in major markets the density of consumers is too low to support two systems in direct head to head competition. If both TW and Comcast could make a profit operating in the same markets, they would. They'd both get franchises and both run physical plant and you'd have a choice.

Those gullible Canadians, buying 550 metric tons of non-existant yellow cake.

Ok.

That's what happens when you announce to the world the date that you're going to pull your troops out of a country where you're trying to help the government restore some semblance of order. All the opponents have to do is go into hiding, planning for the day when you leave. They have no reason to surrender if they know they're going to win on a certain preset day.

Actually, no it isn't. It is a description for a group of people that actually defines group membership.

A stereotype would be to say that liberals are all politically correct, professionally offended people. You see how that works? A group defined by some other property is claimed to have another potentially unrelated property assigned to it.

For another example, there is a group of people who play online or video games, called "gamers". To then say that "gamers are misogynists" would be stereotyping.

Hardly. It was because they saw what the Church of England had done to non COE people and wanted to prevent that here. They knew their history a lot better than you because it was much fresher in the memory of those who fled England to get away from it.

Right. If you're only teaching children of your "personal faith" then you are running a private school, and private schools are not a government establishment of religion. Kinda like the Catholic schools that are also not a government establishment of religion.

No, "leaving it alone" is accomplished by doing nothing. Decedents will have nothing to do with it. How can they? They're already dead.

You claimed the OP was looking for the death of all humans. That's just false, and I corrected you on it. Leaving it alone means not forcing the system we don't fully understand to try to change to our whim, unlike those who would whip the waves to stop the tide.

Those who don't use the decades we have to adapt, well, they're standing on the shore whipping the waves or floating out to sea in the house they expected the government to protect. But to claim that expecting people to adapt is calling for the death of all humans is just patently absurd. Kind of like blaming something on the demise of decedents.

I read the parent. He said that those who are around today won' t be around long enough to see the recovery. As in, the recovery will take longer than a human lifetime.

Also read you, where you changed that to "kill all the humans" and asked who would be around. I told you: anyone who isn't stupid enough to stand still and expect the government to solve their problems for them.

All the people who are smart enough to move away from the coast when the sea level takes a couple of decades to rise based on the couple of decades it will take for Greenland to melt.

The ones who won't be waiting around are the ones who are washed out to sea while standing in their houses surrounded by the incoming tide wondering when the government is going to do something about this problem. I.e., the true Darwin Award winners.

FTFY. Maybe you don't realize that opposition to the creation of a federal government department to control something isn't defacto opposition to whatever that something is, so you make your flamebait accusation...

When you can read "work very hard at" and a later comment about there still being infant mortality, and come up with thinking that I said that nobody ever dies, well, I know you're not here to discuss this honestly.

Bye.

I'm fascinated by this concept of "magazine" to which you refer. Do you have a newsletter I might subscribe to that explains it in more detail?

In other words, you pay for a phone line that you can't use because the guy hung up thirty minutes ago and you haven't gotten back to hang yours up yet.

Just like the majority of aircraft incidents are caused by "pilot error" because, well, there was a pilot on board and he didn't stop whatever bad thing it was from happening. Autopilot went south, drove the elevator trim full nose up, and the pilot couldn't get the nose back down before the plane went into a stall/spin/crash/die? That was his error. Or he failed to cancel his flight because he didn't detect the problem before taking off. That's "pilot error", too, just worded as "improper preflight".

So from what you say, as a potential driver of an autonomous vehicle, whenever it barfs and tries to hand control over to me, I should refuse. Otherwise, when I can't fix whatever situation the car has gotten me into it will be my fault ("accidents happen just after the driver takes control"). To keep from being sued for the accident, I'll have to take the position that "hey, I was never in control, it was Google that failed, sue them."

Of COURSE a large number, even majority, of accidents in autonomous vehicles will happen "just after" the vehicle has bailed out on the driver and said "tag, you're it". Especially to those drivers who want to abandon their responsibility for their own safety and sleep instead of drive. "I said WAKE UP human, I can't deal with thi.... (sound of bending metal) oh never mind."

Which includes profit for lawyers, because you can take it as a fact that there will be lawsuits every time an autonomous vehicle kills or injures someone. That's a natural side-effect of outrageous promises that would be called "false advertising" were the same kind of claims applied to a toaster or television.