Is that actually using i outside the loop, or are you just implicitly defining i after the loop? I don't know the answer, but based on my knowledge of JS, either could be the case. The latter is not a scope issue.

If we just put the trillion in the bank at 4% interest rate, you would get 40 billion dollars a year, It could pay 1 million people 40K a year. None of these projects ever create even a large fraction of a million jobs. Even if it uses the money to hire half million people to dig a trench and the other half to close it up it would provide greater economic impact to the economy than such boondongles.

Oh, well, and since we all know that a name is always 100% accurate and tells us everything...

Did you actually read the thread, or just the headline and thought "oh, that must support my position?" Because I read it, and some of them make a very good point regarding the context of this particular situation.

Nah, I'll leave the strawmen and other forms of fallacious thinking to you, since you're so much better at it than I am.

Yea, about that...

Citation, citation, citation.

Here, I'll get one for you:

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act:

The purpose of the act is to prevent firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable for negligence when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products (i.e. automobiles, appliances, power tools, etc.) are held responsible

One down...

No there isn't.

Balaclavas hide identity, too, but you never see a clothmaker sued when someone robs a bank.

Consent from one party, or both?

I'd like to see that precedent cited.

Polaroids and VHS, baby :)

Streisand Effect will fix that.

Probably already has.

Yea, but they don't get sued for the things people use the roads they designed for. Which is what's happening here.

I've read plenty to know that even if a margin of the population here are doing that, you're still wrong to assume that's the general tone, as it appears you are doing.

She doesn't understand a thing, so she sues it. That indicates a piss-poor understanding of Western legal practices. A good law student would have done a tiny bit of research before going all sue-happy. Hell, a halfway intelligent person in general would do that. Only morons sue what they fail to understand.

Well, since I never said that, fuck you.

What I said is that when douchebags compare every-fucking-thing to rape, it desensitizes the public to the concept, which does harm to rape victims by marginalizing their suffering. Just because it happens to a woman doesn't make it rape, and if you disagree, go down to your local battered women shelter and ask them what they think about it. I'd recommend you wear a cup.

You perceiving something one way does not make it so. As I and other have already pointed out, we are not blaming her for becoming a victim. We're blaming her for trying to resolve the situation in what is one of the most dumbass ways possible.

Yea, keep intentionally or ignorantly misinterpreting my words and meaning. That'll show me.

Yea, kinda.

So much for not trying to start a flame war.

Anyway, the precedent is already set, at least in terms of firearms manufacturers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

Short answer, no, you can't sue them for what people do with their products.