but she did feel safe thanks to the lack of warning on the google directions.
I totally sympathize with her. I was looking up walking directions from Seattle to Brisbane, Australia and when the Google Maps turn #10 ended up being "Kayak across the Pacific Ocean," for 2,756 miles at first I was like, "No way I can kayak that far." But then I realized that Google Maps wouldn't tell me to do something that wasn't perfectly safe so I went ahead and did it.
Sooo... Long story short, do you think Omaha Steaks delivers to GPS coordinates in the ocean? Also, do they carry sunblock?
--Sent from my Blackberry wireless device
A service on the other hand, is entirely under the control of a third party and can change at their whim.
When you enter into a service contract where you're obligated to pay nothing, you're more willing to accept very permissive "change-at-the-provider's-whim" stipulations than if you were actually paying for some value.
This article is entirely about a service that started off working, and then the company providing it stopped providing it to the one particular user with no explanation as to why.
I don't know about you, but I'm not so insecure about my particular biases that I think everyone should be forced to be exposed to them. So I guess the real question is, how do you cull out the bias-laden subjects? Maybe you can't - I mean, you could even make arguments that math can be taught with a political slant. So maybe the right answer is to scale back the scope of boards of education to establishing quality gates for education, rather than mandating the manner in which the education is delivered.
Now, 60 similar cases nationwide claim that the standard design of table saws, unchanged for decades, is defective. In addition, they claim manufacturers are negligent in failing to adopt a flesh-detecting technology like SawStop's
This is a weird situation. I can see the logic behind holding a company responsible if they ignored a law requiring certain safety standards or procedures. I can also understand holding a company responsible if they did not provide or adhere to widely-accepted industry-standard safety feature or procedure.
But in this case, the legislative branch (via the patent though I guess, technically, via the USPTO) created a negative incentive for adopting the technology in question. And now the judicial branch has, de facto, created a severe penalty for *not* adopting it. These are two external, artificial market forces that are in direct opposition to one another.
I mean, not to get all Adam Smithy or anything, but consider the situation where the patent is allowed to persist, *and* the precedent of the lawsuit is followed by more similar absurd lottery-payout lawsuits. Now that it's effectively infeasible to *not* use SawStop(TM) due to the risk of getting sued for a hojillion dollars, table saw manufacturers that can't afford the patent royalties and, who up until this landmark legal decision, were able to provide perfectly good table saws to their customers, go out of business. Table saw manufacturers who can afford to pay for "SawStop" stay afloat, but with increased costs, and make and therefore sell less saws. This results in a decrease in the supply of table saws, which results in an increase in the price of table saws. Which results in an increase in the price of things that require the use of table saws (such as houses).
Whatever. My point is that if something's so important that a court would find a company negligent for not using it, then there should be a law *requiring* that all companies use it. A corollary is that if Widget X or Procedure Y falls into this category, then there should be no artificial manipulation of the market price (a patent is such an artificial manipulation) so that we, as a society, can produce the optimal amounts of things that use those widgets and/or procedures.
Then they should also reject the arrangements currently in place for fire fighting, public education and Medicare/Medicaid etc. In our movement, we do not compel anyone to join. What we do, is to offer choice.
Great idea! This year when I file my taxes, I'll just check the, "No thank you, I would not like to pay taxes for Medicare or Public Education!" boxes!
Actually, this is great argument to present to confused people who seem to think that taxes are some sort of donation that everyone should be happy to pay rather than a forcible confiscation of your hard-earned money. If you really *are* for "freedom" and "choice," then why don't we just allow people to voluntarily pay taxes only for the pieces of government that they actually support? That would include things like funding wars, etc.
Now *that* would be freedom.
Actually there are programs to encourage men to go into nursing. Men don't though, do you know why? Same reason women don't get into computer science: cultural conditioning.
Isn't "cultural conditioning," just another way of saying "how to raise your kids?" So what are the types of conditioning that are personally acceptable to you?
The problem is that property is not pulled out of vacuum, it's created out of natural resources depriving others of said resources.
At this point, on this planet, just about everything that can be owned already *is* owned. So the exchange of property (i.e., matter) for money (i.e., time) and vice-versa works within that system according to the rules that emerge from natural rights.
If by "natural resources," you mean stuff that somebody already owns (e.g., land, minerals they've mined, etc.), and that ownership is legally recognized by some contemporary government, but you have some sort of cosmic-fairness-based argument why they *shouldn't* own it, objections about how they historically came to own it, or ideas about how we ought to provide some sort of reparations for the wrongs that came along with that initial establishment of ownership, then please just stop here - I don't care to have that argument. We had our "Wild West" days of expansion and acquisition, and I wouldn't disagree that many people were wronged in that time. But the sad fact is that, no matter how you personally feel about it, those things *are* owned, and in just about every nation there's a framework that both supports the legitimacy of the current owners. That argument is focused on the redistribution of current ownership based on past grievances, not a real critique of property rights.
However, I agree that there's a problem if by "natural resources" you mean "stuff that nobody owns yet." That's an interesting issue - given, at this point that would almost have to be something extra-planetary. The right to property can't exist unless there's a government that can effectively prevent others from depriving you of property by force or fraud. While we're done with the Wild West days on this planet, there's a whole universe out there that isn't under lock and key by any planetary government.
So the question is, can we somehow devise a system under which the next phase of expansion and acquisition is done in a more orderly and just fashion than the last one?
e-credibility: the non-guaranteeable likelihood that the electronic data you're seeing is genuine rather than somebody's made-up crap. - Karl Lehenbauer