from what you are saying it seems android is more lenient about allowing you to target old devices.

They are, which is why software quality on Android lags iOS.

Apple at the moment does not let you submit to the app store anything targeting anything under iOS5 (a somewhat recent change after 6.0 had been out for a while).

This may mean some older devices drop out - but at this point the only devices out are some 1st gen iPod touches and the very first iPhone (not even the iPhone 3G which can run iOS5). That is not unreasonable and means that applications generally make use of new and advanced system features sooner rather than never.

In a world where Android developers pretty much have to target 2.0 devices as a base, you lose some ability to use advanced features to make a better app. That is dragging down quality all over and is only going to become more of an issue as iOS framework features advance...

Only 1 butterfly.

And, I'm curious as to how you justify claiming that somebody else smoking doesn't affect the cost of providing coverage to the entire pool. Because that's how insurance pools work, a few people that refuse to behave responsibly make things expensive for the other people in the pool.

I'm just saying, why pick on ONE bad habit...as mentioned before, the bad dietary habits and obesity are posing the single largest health problem right now and going into the future. That problem will dwarf smokers in terms of cost very soon, if not already.

Besides, smokers kill themselves off early on, so they don't have quite the drag on the pools system that the obese type II diabetes folks have.

And no...what is 3rd hand smoke? That's a new one on me.

And if you resist, then you should be shot!

Oh, wait...

I have to ask... did your neighbor actually ever assaulted anyone?

Don't get me wrong, listening to Michael Savage is as sure sign of a mental disorder as there ever was, but not all mental disorders are violent.

He probably won't, actually, because doing so would mean that he'd get charged with premeditated murder if caught (and eventually they're caught), which usually carries death penalty or life in prison.

Statistically, in vast majority of cases where firearms are defensively used in US, they're not fired - the assailant simply flees. It's the rational thing to do even for an armed one, since shooting them as they flee is illegal (no imminent danger at that point), while trying to fight carries both the risk of getting shot by the victim, and the risk of killing the victim and being tried for that if caught.

Guns don't escalate violence, they escalate the capacity for violence. These two are not the same thing; quite often, when faced with a threat of escalated violence, a would-be attacker just backs off. MAD is an extreme example of that principle, but it applies elsewhere, as well.

One more aspect that I forgot to bring up: the nifty thing about guns is that they're often very efficient deescalation tools. A guy with a knife faced with a gun and a threat to shoot will likely retreat. The same guy threatened to have his arm dislocated will likely just laugh in your face. It's no coincidence that vast majority (IIRC, over 90%) of defensive gun use does not involve firing it.

Trying to dislocate an arm of an attacker - who is likely to be physically stronger and/or bigger than you - is a fairly risky proposition. It requires one both to be in a good physical shape, and to be trained to do this kind of thing. Handguns, in contrast, are accessible to pretty much anyone regardless of their physique, require minimal training to be effectively used in close range self-defense, and are highly efficient in the intended goal (incapacitate the attacker) in most use cases.

So, why wouldn't you use a handgun in self-defense (to remind, we're talking about an actual assault here, not "someone shoved me"). In demanding other people to do so, you're effectively asking them to take on higher risk - significantly higher for most - for the sake of less harm to a person who just tried to inflict grievous harm on them. The only possible ethical rationalization for such a thing that I can think of is a religious belief in absolute, unconditional sanctity of human life, but I think it's reasonable to assume that most people don't share it.

You really don't. Knowing that you're armed would reduce the risk of being robbed in your house, yes, but it would also increase the risk of being burgled. Firearms are expensive enough per ounce of weight to make them very lucrative targets.

No, it's not filled with cunts. There's alot of dinks there too.

Ban hands so they can't play Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock.

This is why we need separate bicycle paths and lanes separated from other traffic by barriers

It's pretty expensive to fully grade-separate a bicycle path. Anything less than full grade separation is hardly an improvement in safety, especially for experienced bicyclists, because being hit from behind is relatively rare.

You bring up a good point. NYC is replacing the word "accident" with "collision" because "In the past, the term 'accident' has sometimes given the inaccurate impression or connotation that there is no fault or liability associated with a specific event."

We should all think twice before using the word "accident." Because driver negligence is the number one cause of crashes, more often than not the word "accident" when used in the context of automobile collisions is imprecise at best, and deceptive at worst. And isn't it just easier to say "crash"?

You talk as if the government is some kind of external entity with which you have no connection. The government is (supposed to be) society's instrument. It can only deprive you of money or freedom based on the rules which society has agreed. If you don't want to live in society then yes, you have to leave, but you are a part of it and have some influence over it.

You are going with the assumption that govt is LISTENING to the public....from past few years, I'm convinced we the people have little to nothing to do with their decisions and lawmaking. For instance polls showing the majority of the US not wanting what we got for obamacare in the form it was passed...were 100% ignored. It seems to be that way for so many issues, not just healthcare.

Unless you have corp. level money and influence, you do not get a voice in our country any longer. I firmly believe that 100%.

I'm not the only one thinking this way.