I am amazed that you are all-right with the scenario of people who had never handled a car drive in a highway alone. If you think that's perfectly okay, I really don't know what to say. I suppose you believe there should not be be any maximum or minimum speed limit as well? Or any punishments for crossing the red light?

There is one example of a country that has extremely little regulation, that does not have what you detest: "a single monolithic system (government) that offers services, administers privileges, arbitrates punishment and also maintains a monopoly on violence". This lead to multiple factions, previously civilians, trying to take control and lead to a complete mess in Somalia. The lack of the monopoly of violence lead to killings that was unheard of; you may be forgetting that everyone is not as nice as you think they are.

You said: "I've pointed out a couple times above how any argument against less regulations and less laws always is met with extreme scenarios to justify the need for government intervention. Look, bombs on a plane are a distraction from what we were originally talking about here" - but it is completely related. Where do you draw the line? You seemed to have drawn it when it came to bombs in planes, because of the potential deaths. I, and I assume most others, draw it at drunk driving, for the exact same reason: potential deaths. Neither of these two acts can guarantee victims, but it makes sense for an authority to ban them because it's something unnecessary that may cause harm for little benefit.

BTW: you also said "What if Verizon sold you phone service, maintained a monopoly on all phone services, created a compulsory licensing system where they could reject or allow the use of the phone service, and then were allowed to judge and execute punishment for any misuse they determined?" - there is an exact example of a telecom like this in a country with camels, where using a voip app can land you in jail and lead to deportation. So I understand the necessity of less government intervention, but your scale of deregulation is a bit extreme, though I also understand that a slow creep of more control can actually lead to situations like this in other countries as well. But I maintain that road regulations, at least, are done for the greater good.

Sorry, I must have misunderstood you when you said "And it's obvious with all these other draconian punishments we're not stopping people from drinking and driving in this country"; I thought you meant that we should remove them as they're not helpful, when you were just commenting on their effectiveness.

"airlines typically are owned and operated privately, and they should determine what is allowed on the plane." - I don't think that's true; airline threats are regulated by the government; they won't be allowed to have bombs on the plane even if they wanted to. Otherwise, we'd have the taliban having private airlines. But then this brings my original question again; it _should_ be okay to allow bombs and guns on a plane, since we have no proof of any potential wrongdoing? What do you think?

"because the streets are (supposedly) publicly owned and paid for, so we all have a right to use them." That doesn't make sense to me; you mean to say it should be all-right for people to drive without a license or training? Because the road is public and we have the right to use them?

You might have a point that the legal limit may be too low; or rather it depends on the person. But my agreement ends there; there _should_ be some sort of strict regulation; a drunk person on the steering wheel is a hazard, and deserves the punishments for being so inconsiderate, for the cost of a cab or ride home.

So blankfist, do you think that pilots should be allowed to handle a plane drunk? After all, no one gets hurt by him drinking, right?

If drunk driving wasn't taken seriously, there'd be a _lot_ more people doing it, and it would _certainly_ lead to more damages and death. Even with these strict laws, 1/3rd, 1/3RD of traffic deaths were caused by drunk driving. In some states, it's 50%. Your arguing that even with these laws, we have these deaths. So your solution is removing these laws altogether? What would the situation be if we allowed unconditional drunk driving?
You said that majority of the deaths were caused by males, so it'd be like banning men from driving. But that's like saying majority of the murders were made by men, so we should ban men from existing. Drunk driving is EASILY avoidable, and is directly co-related to driving skills.

I do not understand your point of only punishing them "when a victim has been created. A victim means someone is hit or hurt by a drunk driver"; when the likelihood of an accident gets sky high when the driver is drunk; you seem to be either forgetting or denying that part. It's like allowing people to carry bombs and guns in an aircraft: no one was injured yet, and we'll never know until he takes the plane down, so why punish them for something they haven't done and there is no proof, zero proof, that he'd actually bomb the plane?

Anyway, how difficult is it to NOT get drunk before you drive?

Curious to know more about your views or possible alternatives, blankfist.

I think the problem has been fixed! Previously, the video never used to get cached when the player state was gone, so we had to wait to re-buffer the video to replay, but now it keeps it where the player left off (the "Replay" screen). Perfect!

>> ^campionidelmondo:
>> ^therealblankman:
Biggest positive: Flags.
Biggest negative: Related video display. This completely blows. I don't want to have the video I'm watching replaced by related videos, I've got a slow connection out here in the wild, and to have to completely re-load a video if bychance I want to re-watch it sucks ginger balls.

The video should still be cached, so it shouldn't have to load it again. However, we are working on a solution that will completely preserve the player's state and we'll let you know when these changes go live.

One problem with the "Related video display" feature is that for people with slow internet connections, once the video has ended, it removes the embed (?), which means that if we want to replay the clip now, we have to wait for 6 minutes again for it to buffer. Previously, we could replay instantly.

The related videos at the end of the page works fine, I think.