You have no more facts than any of us do. Still you say we have kneejerk reactions, while you throw one chewbacca defense after another out there. You are making just as many assumptions as I do. I just have a different philosophy about what responsibilities comes with the privilege of operating a motor vehicle. I see often cases where drivers are being reckless, and even when their actions cause harm, it is written off as an accident. I refute this definition of an accident. It is not an accident if you engage in an activity you know is risky and dangerous. Motorists are almost above the law in this country. I have myself been bodily harmed by a car making an illegal pass, and the underage driver, who even tried to flee the scene, but were stopped a couple of blocks away, was not even given a citation. The offense was a misdemeanor, because I was not severely or fatally wounded. Had I died, it would have been a felony hit and run. But police did not give a citation, because they could not prove that it was her intent to flee the scene. Which is bullpucky, because her illegal passengers (because she had a restricted license) shouted out as the crash happened, so she knew the accident had happened, and she still drove 2 blocks and didn't stop until a police car flagged her down.

Driving a car in this country is considered more of a right than a privilege, and even the weak laws that exist to regulate this dangerous activity, are rarely upheld by police. In other countries, if you are involved in an accident like this, or severe speeding, they simply take your drivers license, and you don't get it back until you gave been checked out of the case. The safety of the public is considered more important than the "right" of a reckless driver to continue with their reckless driving.

Being blinded by the sun is not really an accident. The Sun has been there for billions of years. If you keep on driving at full speed while seeing nothing, you are being reckless. You are supposed to slow down to adjust to the driving conditions.If you don't, you are engaging in a reckless activity, that can have severe consequences for others, no different than taking a gun and shooting randomly into a crowd, or driving a car while browsing facebook.

a towel, and hope for the best.

No, since it's absence can be empirically proven simply by means of a banana peal.

Haha, that's some funny shit.

Well, I don't have much of their stuff but I think what I have is ok stuff. Probably just a matter of a grossly overreaching marketing department. Some idiot fatass willing to eat babies to get his bonus.

Criminals get dumber and dumber.

If he was not such a retard he'd just sign up with bogus accounts and write the reviews himself, from a public library terminal.

No, if you read my whole post, I made the same point as you, that she didn't get what she wanted and needed.

However, I also looked ath the price. $1100 ids much more than most people need. And this girl did not seem to possess any of the traits of a power user that needs a powerful machine.

And if you note my critique of ubuntu advocacy, you woudl inow I am not a fanboy.

I suspect you are less than a one-bit thinker.

Maybe my post was too long for you, since you seem to have room for only 1 chunk of information in your short term active memory, as opposed to the more common 4-7 chunks.

Yes I am arrogant, but you are a pedant. I have always despised pedants and will always do so. They are little people of no consequence.

You are absolutely wrong.
She is a bit of a luddite by not being competent in this technology. If she knew about operating systems, she would know that word only runs on windows and mac. It is my contention that someone who does not know this, is unlikely to require an $1100 laptop. She is also being a bit of ludite for showing helplessness in dealing with these issues. She is blaming the technology for her lack of knowledge. And going to the news instead of finding a skillfull helper. That's ludite behavior. So I stand uncorrected. Not gonna give you an inch. You are behaving like a one bit dictionary.

Ludite(sic(sic)).

I misspelled it because of the spell checker, which gave a red line under luddite. Thanks for getting me straightned out on that.

You must apparently be a binary thinker, a person with a one-bit brain. If not you would realize that such traits are not binary. Between full luddite, which is basically a cave woman, and the ultra-wired gadget obsessed, which has to have tomorrows gadgets yesterday, there is a sliding scale. I wrote "a bit of a luddite", which kind of makes your point pointless, but thanks for pointing out the spelling.