Require tests of one's ability to actually maneuver the car skillfully and to perform various emergency maneuvers in order to obtain a license, instead of the test being little more than memorizing traffic signs and rules. When about 50% to 75% of all applicants fail and must re-take the test, it is comprehensive enough. Require all retirees to re-take this test every two years in order to obtain a license. Treat "failure to yield" and "following too closely" as automatic fails of the test, and treat these violations as nearly as serious as DUI for licensed drivers on public roads. Stop worrying so damned much about speeding since it rarely causes accidents, and start telling cops to ticket slow drivers because they actually do create hazards for others.

We certainly can do this, but you can see there is no political will to carry it out despite all the "driving is a privilege, not a right" mantras you might hear from the states. The states themselves would receive far less in ticket revenues if poor drivers were kept off the roads, so again they have a disincentive.

There's a cause alright, and it's quite deliberate.

Historically education (especially higher education) was not for the purpose of job training. That was handled by other means such as apprenticeships. Education was for the purpose of personal enrichment and quality of life.

A nation of people who can effectively work their corporate jobs but believe everything the TV tells them will create a fascist dictatorship. In the USA it will probably be a "soft tyranny" of the "we know what's best for you, or else" type, not the "strong man with an iron fist" dictatorships we've seen in the past.

That double standard will continue to exist so long as (too many) women continue to use sex appeal as a weapon of manipulation and a means of getting what they want.

If the significance of a woman's body and a woman's sexuality were to decline and become equal with mens', both effects would happen. It would be less useful as a tool of manipulation by unscrupulous women (the ones a wise man avoids) AND people would stop making a big deal out of every time a woman's body is exposed.

It's a win for people who view strife and chaos as a means to achieve power. Historically, a peaceful prosperous nation with no crises and no serious threats has never been a means of expanding political power. "All lose" in the general sense, because the few who do gain are so tiny in number that they are less than a rounding error compared to those who lose, so I don't think your statement is generally false.

You probably noticed my post contained no such recommendation. Personally, I really don't want to rely on the government to protect me from things that I can protect myself from merely by using good judgment and not taking stupid and unnecessary risks. If I do take a stupid and unnecessary risk and it results in regret and humiliation, I don't view that as a law enforcement problem.

Then there's the whole topic of how one actually gets to be a major political candidate and why no one who wants to strongly reduce the size and power of government is likely to ever get the financial backing it takes to win an election.

Actually I'm more of a small-'l' libertarian. Force, threat of force, and fraud are the major things a government should protect you from.

What the law should say and what constitutes a good, rational decision are two separate issues.

It's not slander if it's factually correct.

Because telling other people how they must live is an irresistable urge among the small-minded. All of the reasons boil down to that. Drugs are hardly unique in this sense.

If the intention were to reduce harm as much as possible, prohibition is one of the least effective methods and all of the research shows this. But these are not people who are interested in facts, in measuring the effectiveness of their own solutions and no longer using methods that don't work. That would lead to conclusions that would interfere with pontificating to others about how they should live.

"Live and let live" and the notion of "consenting adults" do not occur to the small-minded.

I'm not an atheist and I sincerely believe that one of the most immoral things we tolerate today is the effort to tell other people how they should live. That desire is the primary motive behind the War on (some) Drugs. What other people read, watch, think, believe, ingest, and generally anything (anything) consenting adults wish to do is absolutely none of my fucking business. Government has no case for its involvement unless a third party is victimized in some way.

I believe your problem is with organized religion, not with the concept of God itself and certainly not with any kind of genuine spirituality as practiced by thinking individuals. Incidentally I also can't stand the people who must win a convert and cannot respect that you believe what you believe (or not) for your own reasons. It's again a desire to control and make others like oneself and it's just plain evil trying to masquerade as good.

It would be like Grey Goo, only produced without nanotechnology.

Yes! Thank you. It's a nuisance when you can so clearly see something in your mind's eye and know it should be easy to find, but not be able to find it because of not remembering its name. Good work.

It's just yet another proof (as though more were needed) that security isn't something you can bolt-on after the fact. It would probably have required of them less effort to have done a rewrite from scratch, designed from the beginning with security in mind, than to have issued so very many patches and updates throughout the years.

Do they never consider that? Or I suppose it doesn't matter until something really embarassing like this happens?