All of Firefox's plugins have security problems. Requiring click-to-play only for Java while ignoring all other plugins comes off as biased.
Freedom of speech should be absolute when it comes to voicing political opinions. Otherwise, you don't have a true democracy, since opponents may not be able to argue their point.
Freedom of speech, as a political right, does protect you from consequences from the state. Of course it does not apply to other private entities, as those don't have any political power over you.
I would support that. But that means that groups such as Neo Nazis would not have the right to spread hate against racial groups, because racial groups do not represent "the state" you speak of.
Your argument makes more sense than those of others. So yes, it's possible.
Guilty until proven innocent?
Unlikely. There is no evidence that the cop saw the defendant before entering his car and preparing the paperwork to fine/arrest him.
1. Freedom of Speech is not absolute, nor should it be. Case in point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater
2. Freedom of Speech does not protect you from the consequences. If you openly slander your boss, he is free to fire you from the job.
All this to say: No rights are absolute, nor are they free of consequences.
Really? Last I checked, this is a legal contract between the end-user and the phone manufacturer, not Google. Further, do all phone manufacturers void warranty on reflashing?
Is there an Indigogo campaign?
Even if they did: how would they track billing? I assume they don't plan to give out electricity for free?
Agreed on "Only 345 million?"
They seem to be worth *a lot* more.
The existing system already does that. They already pay more than the average.
The danger isn't in what insurance companies will do to drag racers. The danger is in who gets to define what constitutes reckless driving, especially if "reckless" is due to the kind of car you have access to due to your financial situation or your demographic background or even your health.
The only real value of insurance is the "group" part of it. Otherwise it's nothing more than forced savings, which makes it kind of useless.
Maybe the reason my driving habits are bad are due to the crappy car I drive (the only one I can afford) or anger management issues or health-related disabilities?
The difference is that high-risk driving is a choice that one can make each day. On the other hand, most high-risk health conditions are not something that someone can fix instantly by changing their behavior. Now, there are indeed some high-risk health conditions that are a result of choice, such as smoking or unhealthy eating habits...but even with those, one can stop smoking, but there's a significant amount of damage that's already done that makes that person be a higher risk. If there's a way to adjust one's insurance premium based on the high-risk choices they make, it becomes more fair for everyone and helps to discourage high-risk choices.
So, you're essentially saying we should punish fat people for being fat and bad drivers for being bad.
Sure it works in theory, but again it's a very slippery slope.
If you really want people to pay based on their individual performance, why do we need insurance at all? Let people pay out of pocket when they get into an accident. Without "group coverage" insurance is nothing more than forced savings.
Not true. Your driving skill is guaranteed to get worse as your health deteriorates.
Similarly, kids eat like crap, get healthy in their mid-years, then develop a host of complications in old age.
The two (health and driving) are actually quite similar (though I will admit, it is a lot easier to improve your driving skills than your health).