Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 55

Thread: "Beauty Lasers" on ebay!!! What?

  1. #41
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    1 hr from everything in SoCal
    Posts
    2,753

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stiffler View Post
    While we are at it, why don't we all just leave our doors unlocked and trust that people will be honest!!
    There's no door lock law though. There are good ideas and common sense ideas but that does not mean they need to be stamped into law, leaving us to foot the bill for enforcement.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stiffler
    Seat belts save lives, this is a fact, which translates into lower insurance premiums. When I was 19 years old I flipped my dads Mustang 4 times when I failed to make a corner (yes, I was speeding) and after it stopped moving I unbelted myself and walked away; I for one, am glad that there is a seat belt law. I also laid down a motorcycle at 130+ mph (at a racetrack) , and walked away from that; my helmet saved my life, and my leathers saved my skin.
    Good thing you were protected! The point though is I wear my seatbelt because of the fact that they save lives, not because of a law. Everyone knows that helmets protect you on a bike. I wear one when I ride my quad at the dunes. It is law but even if it wasn't, I would still because I know that if I wreck, I could end up a vegtable. Laws don't save lives, education does which is, I think, what Jon was driving at. Why is smoking still legal? We know it kills. It is proven. Not only kills but deteriorates health. People still do it and if they want to kill themselves off, I don't have a problem with it. Same with seatbelts, helmets and 32oz soda (NYC). The cynical side of me says that this comes down to money. It is profitable for the bureaucrats. Tickets for non-seatbelt wearers and non helmet wearers (where applicable) generate revenue for the state and is sure-fire e.g. next to impossible to fight in court. Same with cell phone use (talking, not texting), it is quick money. This is also why smoking, which is proven to stricken and kill, is still not illegal. Taxation of tobacco products is big money. This is NOT about health or saving lives. It is swaying personal freedoms, this way and that, to squeeze every nickle out of pocket.

    I know I sound like a prime candidate for Penn and Teller with conspiracy style BS but that is kinda how I see it.
    If you're the smartest person in the room, then you're in the wrong room.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    3,513

    Default

    Seat belts save lives, this is a fact, which translates into lower insurance premiums. When I was 19 years old I flipped my dads Mustang 4 times when I failed to make a corner (yes, I was speeding) and after it stopped moving I unbelted myself and walked away; I for one, am glad that there is a seat belt law. I also laid down a motorcycle at 130+ mph (at a racetrack) , and walked away from that; my helmet saved my life, and my leathers saved my skin.
    Yes, yes I wear a seat belt too. I choose to do this. I work out and I drink only in moderation and floss because I choose to do this. When you get to a certain age it is advised you have a screening colonoscopy. Do you really want A LAW that you have to have something shoved up your...? Yet, this is consistent with your position on seat belts. I am not an advocate of reckless behavior rather I am disappointed in the willingness so many have to delegate these decisions to people they have never met and to agencies that have proved (very recently) at best fallible and at worst corrupt.

    I hang out with people that are pretty smart and usually sober, but I don't think that justifies my circle of friends make the rules for you or anyone else other than themselves. Freedom means responsibility and that's not just a catch phrase it really means you must accept the consequences for your own decisions. Those consequences are not always bad. Sometimes there are great rewards for taking a risk. It is because Americans have become so risk averse and willing to have the general consensus determine so many of the rules that our society is no longer just stagnating it is declining.

    To move away from this seat belt discussion for a bit, what about my earlier statement that there should be restrictions on lasers over say 3mw? You can choose your own threshold, but at what point would a pointer in say the hands of a child or some adult jerk pose a threat to a pilot or a motorist passing under a viaduct etc? This isn't just theoretical. It happens. Now apply this nanny mentality to every device, material, computer program and location within the nation. It might be very safe but it might also describe hell on earth. No thanks!

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,478

    Default

    I think nannying belongs to early childhood. Matches have existed for at least a century or two, putting the ability for unrestrained destruction in the hands of every child who wants to do it. So along with nannying, we can give children memories and experiences than leave them with stromg supporting memories that last even though the causes were short, like a week on holiday near a pond. Small things that leave a child respecting life, getting a lot out of it without harming it, that's what protects us. Laws don't. Most people are ignorant of law. If we had to rely on law we'd be all dead, probably, destroyed by some killer who takes us down in their disrespect of life, us, themselves, everything. There's a lot of that about these days! It's all but replaced formal war as an 'occupation' for too many people worldwide. Law isn't going to fix that. What will is how well we can convey to others the respect for life that makes us want to live it.

    EDIT:
    Just occured to me that it's worth saying to Steve (MixedGas) that despite my name, I don't do the 'Doctor thing;. That name is a bit of a joke, it's because I was a fan of Doctor Who, and long before it became recently fashionable (and admittedly great stuff at times) It could be embarrsaing to still use it, but I'm stuck with it, it's not important enough to change. If anything, it serves to remind me to take care of what I am, as in: physician, heal thyself.
    Last edited by The_Doctor; 08-11-2013 at 03:35.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,478

    Default

    Another thing worth a mention is the disconcerting presence in this thread of a 32 ounce soda, and a 16 ounce toilet. What is wrong with this picture?

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    SoCal / San Salvador / NY
    Posts
    4,018

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by planters View Post
    ...I am disappointed in the willingness so many have to delegate these decisions to people they have never met and to agencies that have proved (very recently) at best fallible and at worst corrupt.
    'Power corrupts, and absolute-power.. ' ...You know the rest.. *However*, in the context of lasers, at least, we do have to give some credit to the Gov-efforts, in the form of the researchers they hired, etc to form the foundation for the 'education', underneath the Regs.. ie: 'this much power, for this-duration, *will* harm your (or others..) eyes' - *That* is not gained thru 'common sense' - at least not prior-to-purchase / learning the 'blind-way' - nor do most of humanity have the means or 'connections' to, ie: hire a Dr. David Sliney to *do* that 'homework' for them (..and, thus, get pre-purchase educated..)

    ..so, what if 'that's all the Guv did' - pay for the homework / tell us 'if you shoot x-mW in an eyeball, no matter how it's done, it's going to damage'.. / leave us all alone, to our own-devices / consequences - would that be 'better'? Well - gotta tell ya - I am quite-fine with the parts of 'the Regs' that *mandate* that, ie: some manufacturer put a 'DANGER'-sticker on some part of my power-supply, that if I - ignorantly, otherwise - nick it with my wedding ring, would send 300V DC thru my arse! Or, that they *mandate* that there's a 'READ THIS BEFORE USING' booklet, etc, that says 'IF YOU STARE AT THIS GLASS-BELL FOR A LONG TIME, W/O UV-PROTECTION, YOU'LL END-UP WITH CATARACTS LATER IN LIFE' - I don't mind those 'Regulations', one-bit! Just-like, I don't mind that the Guv sticks a fork in a car-makers * that there *must* be seat-belts IN my car / 'USE THESE'-sticker, etc - I can still choose to protect my skull, or not..

    ..Honestly, if I were to be 'able to re-write the Regs', I'd make the 'must-have the education to-buy' precept, even more-stringent - like the 'driver-license'-scenario / discussion - Make it an *absolute-condition* of ownership - you will NOT get the 'keys to this car' (be able to buy (actually)-dangerous levels of laser-light / projectors..) - UNTIL you a) take this course, b) pass this test proving a basic-level of operational / safety-knowledge, etc..But - once you've proven you've gotten a basic-level of education / awareness / etc, go have fun, and don't be an *... and, IF ALL THE MANUFACTURERS / SELLERS DID this - we would not NEED Gov-regulations / controlling-agencies to stick their blue-gloved fingers up our...

    ..Does / CAN, a mandated 'earned-ownership'-policy, better-ensure a *basic-level* of education / understanding, and promote 'responsability'?.. I think-so! I mean, to make the point, Thank-goodness that 'driving-requirements' are NOT as loose as the laser-regs - can you imagine? If there's as many accidents / morons on the road / 'illegal' drivers with no formal-schooling, etc as there-are, WITH the driving-requirements, in-place - what would it be like w/O?? What if every state / car-dealer just 'gave the keys' to whomever had the money - no 'license / training-requirements', etc? We would probably not need cars, because we could all transport ourselves in kayaks on the rivers of blood in the streets. (hyperbole 'Looser driving-laws' = better-order? Just go to Bangkok or Mexico City or.. just about anywhere in Russia, etc, etc.. The 'results-statistics' beg to-differ... Can such-laws / regs, etc *guarantee* there will be no-injuries / morons, etc - of course not.. But I cannot see how 'opening the floodgates wide' is a better-solution for the laser-Regs, than trying to just FIX what we have in-place.. I can't agree it should be 'to each his own impulse to self-educate / regulate' - it barely-happens with 'laws' in-place!

    ..And, I know all the arguments from the 'show me the injuries'-camp, but.. UNlike the 'really-obvious results' of bad / irresponsible drivers (bodies on roads, etc) just because there are not as-apparent 'waterfalls of laser-injuries', that, in itself, DOES NOT PROVE injuries - of even MINOR-caliber - ARE NOT HAPPENING.. Some may not know / find out, till 'later in life', etc..

    Quote Originally Posted by planters View Post
    Freedom means responsibility...you must accept the consequences for your own decisions.
    Absolutely, but... How do people become *aware* of those what 'consequences' might or will-be - w/O the education? And, if there are no 'force-fed' efforts, from either laser-product manufacturers / sellers - Or, a sales-regulating agency - TO force-feed that education / awareness, then.. are people going to learn?? Well, seeing the 'results' from the (in-spite of the 'Regs', because they are (practially) not-enforced, at-all...) deluge of imports / and every 'Tom, Epic, and ProDj' increasingly blasting-about higher and higher powers at more and more venues, I'd say NO, we aren't seeing self-seeding improvements in 'common-sense' / self-regulation. And - as a direct-result - it *will* just be a 'matter of time' till we start seeing some really-serious injuries happening / happenED (damage not presenting-symptoms for some-years, yet, due to not being 'recognized' for what it is, etc..)

    Quote Originally Posted by planters View Post
    Now apply this nanny mentality to every device, material, computer program and location within the nation. It might be very safe but it might also describe hell on earth. No thanks!
    See paragraph 1. Neither do I want to live in a 'Fahrenheit 451' or 1984 or the freakingNSA at the bottom of my coffee-cup world... and, Yes - this country is becoming / (has-become?) 'Rome' - the toilet needs a 'major flush + wipe' but - meantime - I can't get on the side of 'sure, let whomever buy whatever lasers they want, they'll sort it out'... I'll pass 'driving on that road', thanks..

    ciao
    j
    Last edited by dsli_jon; 08-11-2013 at 10:14. Reason: sp
    ....and armed only with his trusty 21 Zorgawatt KTiOPO4...

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    3,513

    Default

    Jon,

    I think you get the point. The wisdom is in the middle. But, we are no where near the middle. Your arguments about regulations and stickers and warnings are sound. Where you or someone else draws the line is debatable, in a good way, debatable. Where absolom and I are focusing is on the motivations of the rule setters and the consequences to the rule breakers. We coddle the dopes and the jerks as well as the nasty and the irresponsible. You don't ware a seat belt and you are injured it's your insurance premium that goes up not mine. Oh wait, I forgot Obama is F**King this up too. Mine DOES go up so I guess that gives me the right to tell you how to live. You hit my son with you car while you're texting. That's bad and so "WE" should outlaw texting while driving. Rather, how about "WE" arrest you and put you to death. Harsh, but proportional to the irresponsible act and the terrible consequences that resulted. The hundreds of laws about texting and eating and dog grooming will simply be unnecessary.

    Absolutely, but... How do people become *aware* of those what 'consequences' might or will-be - w/O the education?
    They don't. So, it is their responsibility to get the "education" not mine to anticipate their level of competence and determine what they need to know and then pay for them to learn it!

    I don't think there is any meantime. I think the flush you are talking about is just this and right now. It is these little acquiescences that cause the death by a thousand cuts to this society. The flush won't be by middle America and the Second Amendment or by invaders from the north. This society will simply cease to be distinguishable from the corrupt, third world, post-colonial nations suffering around the world.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Charleston, SC
    Posts
    2,147,489,446

    Default

    Seatbelts do more than just save the life of the person wearing them. They also keep the driver in position behind the wheel and in front of the pedals, allowing him (or her) to continue to control the vehicle (to whatever extent that is still possible). This is especially important in a spin - and here I speak from experience.

    Bottom line: Seatbelts are a good thing, and I don't have a problem with the law requiring their use.

    I agree that coddling dopes and jerks sucks. However, the opposite also sucks. And the opposite has the potential to cause greater harm to me personally (not to mention society at large) in the long run, so I'll live with the stupid extra rules in the short run.

    Adam

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    3,513

    Default

    Adam,

    Bottom line: Seatbelts are a good thing, and I don't have a problem with the law requiring their use.
    I agree they are a good thing, but is that the test? Any good thing...mandate it?

    And the opposite has the potential to cause greater harm to me personally (not to mention society at large) in the long run,
    Sorry, but I disagree. I think you have it backwards. It may cause more harm to you in the short run (and I think this is debatable), but this crushing rule-making is causing great harm in the long run.

    I agree that coddling dopes and jerks sucks
    Why? We are doing this, right? Why is this bad? I agree it is, but I have proposed in the posts above that the consequences are an irresponsible populace that is limited by a sometimes clumsy, impersonal and ever more corrupt bureaucracy. Why do you oppose it?

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Charleston, SC
    Posts
    2,147,489,446

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by planters View Post
    I agree they are a good thing, but is that the test? Any good thing...mandate it?
    Of course not. You're proposing a slippery-slope.

    But within reason, if you can show benefit without inconveniencing others significantly, in a situation where there is a clear need for improvement, then the law makes sense. You can cherry-pick your examples to illustrate an absurd rule if you want, but we're speaking in general terms here, and in general seatbelt laws makes sense.

    Seatbelts are required for a number of very good reasons (not the least of which is that they save lives), and the argument that "I shouldn't be forced to wear it because they are uncomfortable" doesn't infringe enough upon your personal rights to make me think the trade-off (greater chance of loss of control, more deaths, higher insurance premiums, etc) is worth it.

    If you're arguing about seatbelt use from a purely abstract position - that you have the right to determine your own fate and no law should ever infringe upon your personal freedom no matter how trivially - then I won't discuss this further, because in my mind that viewpoint is utterly absurd and completely unreasonable. We're not talking about violating the bill of rights here. (Save that for the discussion about illegal wiretapping, which is *far* more relevant.)

    I think you have it backwards. It may cause more harm to you in the short run (and I think this is debatable), but this crushing rule-making is causing great harm in the long run.
    I think we agree to disagree.

    You seem to favor the complete libertarian point of view. And I admit that pure libertarianism is seductive, at least at first. I was once in favor of the idea myself. But you soon realize that absent many government controls, things can (and usually do) go completely to shit. The problem is that pure Libertarianism has no means to correct this. The idea that "the market will correct" has been shown to be false time and time again. And once you see what true libertarianism will bring you, suddenly it doesn't sound like a good idea at all.

    The fact is, "the market" is no wiser than your average consumer, which is to say that the market is largely uninformed. Also, the government is the ONLY entity that has the power to control corporations. Absent government regulation, corporations can and will happily run roughshod over the public. (Some continue to do this despite government intervention, but that is another discussion.)

    Are there examples of laws that are cumbersome and need to be reformed? Certainly. But there are also many laws that save lives each and every day. Taken on the whole, I'd rather live with what we have and work towards improving the outliers than try to move towards further deregulation. (If you look at the history of deregulation in this country, it has almost never worked out to the benefit of the consumer.)

    More to the point, I have come to this conclusion after working in some of the most heavily regulated (some would say over-regulated) industries in the US today: Nuclear Power, Health Care, Environmental Control, Industrial Job Safety, and most recently Lasers. Given that my experiences with government regulations have often been painful, clearly I must have also seen tremendous benefits from them to be so opposed to the elimination of said regulations.

    I suspect that most of your regulatory experience has been in academic settings, which may explain your frustration with the current system. And as I said, I do agree that there is room for improvement. But I do not agree that the absence of regulations would make things better. No, I think that would make things far, far worse.

    Re: Coddling the dopes...
    We are doing this, right? Why is this bad? I agree it is, but I have proposed in the posts above that the consequences are an irresponsible populace that is limited by a sometimes clumsy, impersonal and ever more corrupt bureaucracy.
    It is bad because it is an imperfect solution that often catches normal, responsible citizens in the same web used to protect the idiots. So it places an extra burden upon responsible citizens.

    Is that what you wanted to hear? (And that being said - so what? Does your need to be burden-free trump the benefits to society at large? Again, we're not talking about the bill of rights here.)

    To your second point regarding the consequences of such "coddling", clearly you and I (not to mention the vast majority of the membership here) are not irresponsible, despite said coddling. So your slippery slope argument has no merit. You can have government regulation without sacrificing personal responsibility. Just because there are idiots in the world doesn't mean that everyone will sink to their level.

    More to the point, having that regulation in place is vastly preferable to the alternative. Right now, if someone who has zero experience and zero common sense uses a dangerous product in public, there is a mechanism in place to shut them down. I agree that when it comes to lasers, it doesn't work very well, and it needs improvement, but it is better than just letting everyone do whatever they want and relying on the general public to apply pressure to get them to stop. (In other words, you're not just protecting the dopes from themselves, you're also protecting everyone else from the dopes!)

    If you are willing to play by the government's rules, you can get a light show variance (yes, even for a laserscope) and use your laser legally in public. And if you're a clueless idiot, you won't get your variance. Sure, you might still get away with buying one illegally, and you might even use it in public, but sooner or later you're going to get caught.

    Adam

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    3,513

    Default

    Adam,

    Although this thread probably belongs in a Politics R US lounge, it is well followed here so I hope it doesn't bother anyone that I pursue it here.

    If you're arguing about seatbelt use from a purely abstract position - that you have the right to determine your own fate and no law should ever infringe upon your personal freedom no matter how trivially - then I won't discuss this further, because in my mind that viewpoint is utterly absurd and completely unreasonable.
    That is exactly my position and so we will have to agree to to hold each others' viewpoint as irreconcilable.

    You seem to favor the complete libertarian point of view.
    The problem here I believe is you have a view of libertarianism that is narrow and as such you rail against what sounds to me very much as an argument against anarchism. I would join you in making THESE arguments. But, I favor a constitutional republic with a federal government limited by the bill of rights. That's it. With it's myriad agencies this is no longer a government by and for the people. It is a government pandering to lobbyists and noisy minority interests with bureaucrats operating in the shadows unanswerable to the public. When caught and this is rare they take the fifth.

    I think you would come a long way to my position if you would, for a moment, accept my assumption; the government is corrupt, bloated and not to be trusted. If you held this same premise I think your willingness to allow government to make decisions on your behalf would disappear. Don't misunderstand, I am not saying our government is totally evil, but it is far, far far from perfect.

    I suspect that most of your regulatory experience has been in academic settings,
    Nope. Despite my "obvious brilliance", I have no connection with academia.

    It is bad because it is an imperfect solution that often catches normal, responsible citizens in the same web used to protect the idiots. So it places an extra burden upon responsible citizens.

    Is that what you wanted to hear? (And that being said - so what? Does your need to be burden-free trump the benefits to society at large?
    Yes, that is what I wanted to hear, but you go on to assume that these burdens DO benefit society at large I do not. Why are we not voyaging to the stars? So much of our collective intelligence and many of our best minds are wasted,struggling to defend their interests from an aggressive and self serving federal government. We don't need anarchy. We need a government, but a much smaller, less intrusive government that works within the limits that were set to create it.
    Last edited by planters; 08-13-2013 at 13:14.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •