[WillAdams]

I'm suggesting that people should have a sense of personal responsibility when operating potentially dangerous equipment, and that a person should not be required to pay extra for a business or hobby just because some well-to-do patent lawyer has come up with a business model which has an end-game of requiring that patents from his company be required in products.

[wat10000]

You can’t control what sense of personal responsibility people will or will not have. So saying that they “should” have it means absolutely fuck all.

A requirement for this safety feature would be enacted in order to prevent a large number of accidental mutilations. It might make money for certain people and they might push it for that reason, but that’s not the main purpose for enacting it.

I look forward to your complaint that you’re forced to spend money on seat belts you don’t need.

[danparsonson]

> personal responsibility

Ah personal responsibility! The magic bullet that mitigates all accidents.

All of your personal responsibility will vanish the instant you injure yourself horribly - then you'll be wholly reliant upon numerous other people who will have to deal with the horror of what you've done to yourself, or else be delayed in receiving their own care because of it.

[Spooky23]

Your way of thinking is why things like safety glass, headrests, and seatbelts were kept of of cars for so long.

It’s a fine principled argument, but stay the hell away from product management.

[lazide]

Just wait until you hear about building codes requiring mandatory AFCI and GCFI breakers.

[Slyfox33]

"Just don't make mistakes!"