Read a Canadian newspaper (web or paper) or watch tv. Been in the main stream media for a couple of days.

I don't disagree with anything you've said. I think what Murdoch is saying is stupid. I've seen people point out here previously, however, that Murdoch himself is not stupid. He might just be an old media dinosaur in this case but I wouldn't be so sure. He holds vast swing in UK politics and what he's basically emitting are none-too-subtly coded messages that he wants something done about the BBC. By being so noisy about how it's impossible to make money in ways he 'ought' to be able to he's also spreading the meme that pay-to-access information is better, that it's a business model that needs protecting explicitly, that the BBC is bigger than people want. He's working towards a political climate in which it will be more acceptable / desirable for the next government to attempt to constrain the BBC and "regulate the internet".

It would probably be good for "the people" if Rupert Murdoch were simply falling behind the times and losing his control. On the other hand, if this is just a move to stall changes in society / industry and put roadblocks in the way of competition then I'm somewhat worried he'll succeed (temporarily) and cause harm overall.

Because exterior changes to your neighbor's home often have negative externalities. That is, they have costs not incurred by the person who pays for the changes. It's the same logic that underlies why we regulate things like water pollution and public dumping. The point of regulating these things is not to bolster property values, but to make sure that the true cost on society of such changes, rather than just the cost to the homeowner, is more accurately reflected, and therefore properly weighed against the benefits which are generally enjoyed only be the homeowner.

That being said, many people enforcing and making these kinds of laws often get carried away and forget the underlying reason for them, as seems to be the case here. So instead of properly weight the negative externalities, on property value, against the positive externalities of the Ha's reduced water usage (or, as was recently the case in my state, reduced electricity use when a couple decided to start hang drying their clothes in their backyard), we have some bureaucrat rubber stamping things to the letter of the law.

How about some sort of a mechanical linkage between the throttle body and the pedal....oh wait...where have I seen this before?

It still happens with a mechanical throttle though ... twice, to me.

First time was when the clip holding the outer at the carbie fractured; the outer pushed forwards into the throttle arm and opened it all the way when I lifted my foot off the accelerator. The second was a worn and frayed inner; it jammed when I accelerated away from an intersection. Both happened on the same stretch of road, oddly enough.

The lesson is this: shit happens; understand what you're doing well enough to automatically know your options when it does; and have the presence of mind to use them. Though, given that most people seem to drive around in some sort of daze or torpor where they don't even know what they're doing until after they start doing it, I doubt they think any further ahead than -0.5 seconds...

What's Windows XP?

Printing penis jokes in 3, 2, 1...

No, it's more like leaving your car with a valet. Then, when your nephew comes to pick up the vehicle, he refuses because your nephew isn't you.

every news outlet that picked up this story posted the same penalties... (this is a very old story by the way...) it isn't about an individual being a douche, it's about media outlets in general being sensationalist because in the end it has been proven to be a more viable business model for distributing stories for profit.

i guess in your country "freedom" is translated as "freedom, as long as it isn't weird or an eyesore"... and why bother even trying to define "weird" or "eyesore" because i'm sure everyone agrees on that.......... right?

you can't legislate morality. you can't legislate neighborliness.