Why is it dangerous?

[Antoninus Twink]

No, *you* missed the point. Someone pointed this possibility to you.
You said "has this really happened?" and you asked for "citation".
So here is the citation. Now you say it's pointless. What's it gonna
be?

Oops, yes, sorry. It's relevant to that, you're right.

Argue with your congressman then (if you're in Canada, UK, Japan,
or some of the select US states), or just be happy (if you live
elsewhere)

Unfortunately, once a freedom has been removed from the individual by
the state, history shows that it's very hard indeed to get the state to
give it back.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

Well, not really. The state shouldn't ban something just because it's
dangerous. The state should trust people to make their own judgment
about what level of personal risk they want to take, insofar as it
doesn't seriously affect others. It's just the difference between a
liberal society and a totalitarian one.

I don't doubt that you (quite sensibly) believe that (and I'm not saying
I agree or disagree). But I'm saying that the alternative view (the one
described above - i.e., that the world *should* be idiot-proofed) is a
reasonable one to hold - and one that many do hold.

Just like the view that one should not cast the return value of malloc().

Heh - I think I've just run out of clc-valid analogies...

I don't think so?

Then what is it?

 

[Antoninus Twink]

Then what is it?

$ dict abseil
1 definition found

From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:

abseil
n : a descent down a nearly vertical surface by using a doubled
rope that is coiled around the body and attached to some
higher point
v : lower oneself with a double rope coiled around the body from
a mountainside; "The ascent was easy--roping down the
mountain would be much more difficult and dangerous";
"You have to learn how to abseil when you want to do
technical climbing" [syn: {rappel}, {rope down}]

 

[Joachim Schmitz]

The dead body gets locked up forever.

. I said: "the attempt gets punished", of course I meant "the failed
attempt gets punished"

Bye, Jojo

 

[Joachim Schmitz]

Then what is it?

$ dict abseil
1 definition found

From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:

abseil
n : a descent down a nearly vertical surface by using a doubled
rope that is coiled around the body and attached to some
higher point
v : lower oneself with a double rope coiled around the body from
a mountainside; "The ascent was easy--roping down the
mountain would be much more difficult and dangerous";
"You have to learn how to abseil when you want to do
technical climbing" [syn: {rappel}, {rope down}]

Apparently lend from the German language, in which it does have exactly the
same meaning and even spelling.

Bye, Jojo

 

[Keith Thompson]

Antoninus Twink wrote: [...]

Utter nonsense.

[...]

Please stop feeding the troll.

 

[Chris M. Thomasson]

I don't doubt that you (quite sensibly) believe that (and I'm not saying
I agree or disagree). But I'm saying that the alternative view (the one
described above - i.e., that the world *should* be idiot-proofed) is a
reasonable one to hold - and one that many do hold.

Are you in favor of restaurants being forced to stick corks on the end of
there forks and knifes because somebody might be able to poke their eye out?
It's not the restaurants fault if somebody accidentally blinds themselves
with a spoon or something... Also, cars with no steering wheels... Humm...
Think along the lines of:


Q: Mr. Automaker, I understand you create cars with steering wheels, is that
correct?
------
A: Yes Sir.



Q: Did your so-called steering wheel allow the now deceased Mr. Smith to
turn into and drive right off a cliff?
------
A: Yes Sir.



Q: Mr. Automaker, since you make cars with steering wheels, and that device
allowed Mr. Smith to kill himself, the only possible conclusion is that its
all your fault! You careless murderer!
------
A: Bullshi%



LOL! :^)



[...]

 

[Chris M. Thomasson]

. I said: "the attempt gets punished", of course I meant "the failed
attempt gets punished"

Indeed! =^D


I have never really understood how somebody could possibly fail to commit
suicide. I mean if you really want to die, and you fail, well, then you
really have a solid reason to kill yourself! Ouch.

 

[Chris M. Thomasson]

Ah. This thread had reached the point where it required interpretation!

Given the context, the requirement to wear seatbelts in the back is
quite a good one.

What happens if the driver hit the brakes for whatever reason, and the
seatbelt causes severe personal injury to the occupant(s) of the back seat?
Who gets to get sued?

 

[Chris M. Thomasson]

What happens if the driver hit the brakes for whatever reason, and the
seatbelt causes severe personal injury to the occupant(s) of the back
seat? Who gets to get sued?

Think along the lines of whiplash of the neck... Ooops, I can't move my head
because it really hurts!

 

[Ian Collins]

What happens if the driver hit the brakes for whatever reason, and the
seatbelt causes severe personal injury to the occupant(s) of the back
seat? Who gets to get sued?

I live in New Zealand, so nobody gets sued!

 

[Chris M. Thomasson]

Chris M. Thomasson said:


Any safety feature, even correctly used, might end up inflicting harm in
certain situations. The question is whether the feature inflicts more harm
than it prevents. In your example, if the force of braking is sufficient
to injure the seatbelt-wearer, the likelihood is that even more harm would
have been caused if the seatbelt had not been worn.

Well, if your wearing a seat-belt which cross over your chest from
right/left to lower left/right, then even a fairly moderate engagement of
the brakes would keep your torso in tact... However, your head would still
be moving forward, and the hinge would be your neck. Therefore, IMVHO, in
this specific scenario, if the seat-belt would have not been there, your
would have possibly bounced your forehead off the "soft" back-end of the
seat in front of you, and the effect on the neck would be somewhat
"absorbed" by your forehead hitting the padded back-end of the seat.

The one to sue is the
one that caused a situation to arise in which the driver felt that
emergency braking was justified. (For example, if a child ran out into the
road in front of the vehicle, you might be tempted to sue the inattentive
parent.)

Well, what about the person(s) that forced the people in the back seat to
wear a seat-belt in the first place? In my specific scenario, I personally
think that the safety device would be in a position to actually cause more
harm than prevented... This is contrived to say the least!

The analogy is now being stretched to breaking point, however. If the
fgets
function is correctly used in place of the gets function (with appropriate
care being taken to handle overly long lines correctly and to deal with
the newline character), and provided that the programmer doesn't adopt
some other stupidity such as (but not limited to!) scanf("%s", s), then
the risk of a source-level buffer overrun weakness has been eliminated.

elimination is a strong word, however, we are dealing with programming which
has some concrete observations. The scenario of a car crash needs to be
examined to the N'th degree. Usually, a programming error can be observed
and proved rather quickly.

Am I off my rocker?

 

[BWIGLEY]

I live in New Zealand, so nobody gets sued!

Yay New Zealand!

(of course w.r.t. fines in New Zealand if the passanger isn't wearing
a seatbelt and is over 15(?) years of age they recieve it, so I'd say
that they'd be responsible for it, not the driver)

 

[Joachim Schmitz]

Antoninus Twink wrote: [...]

Utter nonsense.

[...]

Please stop feeding the troll.

Please leave this to my discretion.

 

[Keith Thompson]

Antoninus Twink wrote: [...]

Utter nonsense.

[...]

Please stop feeding the troll.

Please leave this to my discretion.

I never implied that it isn't up to your discretion.
I merely made a request.

 

[Joachim Schmitz]

Antoninus Twink wrote:
[...]

Utter nonsense.
[...]

Please stop feeding the troll.

Please leave this to my discretion.

I never implied that it isn't up to your discretion.
I merely made a request.

Sorry, point taken. I seem to be overly thin skinned lately...

 

[Kenny McCormack]

Antoninus Twink wrote:
[...]

Utter nonsense.
[...]

Please stop feeding the troll.

Please leave this to my discretion.

I never implied that it isn't up to your discretion.
I merely made a request.

I see what you mean, but it is a fine line you tread.

Like it or not, you (and your cronies) have set yourselves up as
newsgroup cops in CLC - and you enforce the topicality rules with
aplomb. So, when you speak, it carries somewhat more force than when
Joe Newbie speaks. People are expected to follow your directives, just
as they are expected to follow the directives issued by real life cops.

 

[lawrence.jones]

If you'd looked a little closer, you'd have found that C99's usage of the
word "abbreviated" (which has the same root as "abbreviation") clearly
disagrees with the way I was taught at school. (See 7.23.3.5(3) for
details.) Thus, this discussion has uncovered a flaw in the Standard! So
it seems it may conceivably have been worthwhile after all.

Are you sure it's a flaw in the standard rather than a flaw in your
schooling?

My dictionary accepts any form of shortening as an abbreviation; an
abbreviation formed from the initial letters of words is either an
/acronym/ (if pronounceable) or an /initialism/ (if not).

What does the OED have to say?

 

[Richard Tobin]

If you'd looked a little closer, you'd have found that C99's usage of the
word "abbreviated" (which has the same root as "abbreviation") clearly
disagrees with the way I was taught at school.

If you consider that root you will see that it consists of "ad" (to)
and "brevis" (short), so it's not surprising that it has a very
general meaning covering any kind of shortening. If it has a more
specific meaning amongst English teachers, they have failed to impose
it on the rest of us.

-- Richard

 

[Ben Bacarisse]

Are you sure it's a flaw in the standard rather than a flaw in your
schooling?

My dictionary accepts any form of shortening as an abbreviation; an
abbreviation formed from the initial letters of words is either an
/acronym/ (if pronounceable) or an /initialism/ (if not).

What does the OED have to say?

abbreviation

1. The act of shortening, reducing in length.
2. The result of abbreviating; an abbreviated or reduced form; short
summary, abridgement.
3. esp. A shortened form of a spoken word, or written symbol; a part
of a word or symbol standing for the whole.

abbreviated

1. Shortened, cut short, in the various senses of the vb.

and so we also need:

abbreviate

To make shorter, shorten, cut short in any way.

3. trans. To shorten by cutting off a part; to cut short.
d. Of words spoken or written, or symbols of any kind: To contract,
so that a part stands for the whole. The common mod. use.

(Obsolete and obscure uses removed -- hence the missing numbers.)
This is from the on-line 1989 second edition.