 | | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
| (...) So if it is ultimately the driver's responsibility, what good then is the license or the act of issuing it? (...) There is no difference in kind among these. Both are abrogations of responsibility. I believe you are caught in a contradiction, (...) (23 years ago, 8-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
| (...) First, it proves the driver knows how to drive; second, it issues HIM the responsability for his actions behind the wheel, and noone else. It acts more to third parties' safety/insurance than the driver himself. (...) Synonym, PLEASE! :-) And (...) (23 years ago, 8-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
| Hello Larry, (...) No, you're trying to construct the contradiction, by requiring that the result of a regulation must be perfect. Requiring a license does improve safety (though not perfectly). True, it just sets a minimum standard [1]. This is at (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
| (...) You haven't demonstrated that to my satisfaction. (...) Minimum standards tend to become maximum standards in a regulatory environment. (...) There are other, better, mechanisms for changing this behaviour than regulations. Regulations give a (...) (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
| (...) In the case of United Airlines, rather than having to face the true weight of their possible negligence in terms of security failures leading up to the disasters, they have de facto been rewarded by govt. shielding that has given them a (...) (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
| (...) I have flown since then. It was the same as before, yet vastly different, both at the same time in a spooky sort of way. Same terminals, same security guards at my end, but much more serious... and much less attitude from everyone involved. (...) (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
| (...) Actually, they were flying up to 9-11. They just decided as soon as the grounding occurred and it became clear that it was going to be more than just the rest of the day or so, that it wasn't worth trying to continue when they would lose so (...) (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
| (...) OK, thanks for that correction. I stand corrected. (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
| I'm not really sure what this has to do with licensing, but it seemed fun... (...) Does the question mark mean that you are unsure if this is the American way of handling it? I'd have to say that it is not. Now, I wouldn't convict someone were I (...) (23 years ago, 14-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
| (...) Well, I may not be able to ... (...) Not if the interest to conform to the minimum standard is complemented by additional interest to do even better. (...) I never intended to *replace* tort law by regulations. I always thought of them as (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
| (...) Thank you. (...) There is no market incentive to do so, though, given the regulatory shield. (...) Intent notwithstanding, this nevertheless tends to be the outcome. (...) You're starting in the middle. The company would never be allowed (by (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
