"I do base it on things like my ability to control the car and avoid a crash. Things like not having a computer inserted between my controls and the car."
Modern stability controls can do a much better job of allowing you to control the car and avoid a crash than most drivers are able to. You say you're in IT, not a professional driver, so it's safe to assume that includes you. I'm not criticising your car choices, just your rationalisation for them. Claiming you can do a better job of avoiding a crash on your own implies a skill level that's probably higher than the reality.
I don't want to offend but you sound a bit naive, as if you didn't think government and big business would push back to defend their firmly entrenched interests. Tell me who else has the power, funds and network to effectively challenge them? The only group who has a change are voter/purchasers, and they're doing a pretty average job...
Your criticism is very poorly aimed. Those in the "free speech tech community" are not the ones breaking the promises you grew up hearing, in fact they're often the one's fighting hardest for them. It's governments and big business that are entirely to blame for the ills of the internet. You same ones you probably vote for and buy from.
While I share your enthusiasm for older cars, you have to be truly ignorant of modern automotive engineering to think a few basic bolt-ons to an old car can make it as safe as a new one. What you're doing is simply accepting greater risk of injury in an accident. Nothing wrong with honestly admitting that.
Also note that driving in a caged car without a helmet makes serious injury more likely than if you had no cage. Side impacts are far more common than rollovers, and smacking your head against a cage during a crash is never pretty...
"The smarter ones you don't hear about until after they're successful."
And look how incredibly rare they are. Look at the number of deaths from acts of terrorism compared to damn near any other way to die. It's a stupid thing to throw away your liberty for.
"Personal intelligence really has little to do with predicting a the severity of a threat anyway."
Can't agree with that. It's seems common sense that the smarter the perpetrators are the less likelihood they'll be discovered beforehand and the more likely their attacks will be harmful, i.e. smarter = higher threat. So where are all the really smart terrorists at?
The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Cops are given exceptional power, weapons, legal leeway, and (nearly always) the benefit of the doubt. How is it unreasonable to also expect them to prove they're not impaired while carrying out their duties?
"My first assumption isn't that the problem is attempted fraud or systemic scamming."
You remember we're taking about Comcast right? While they may not quite reach the legal definitions of fraud or scams, their standard operating procedure seems to be to consistently deliver something different to what most customers reasonably expect. Proof of widespread inaccuracy in their data metering would surprise absolutely no-one, and they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt.
If you found out your water, electricity or gas bill was consistently higher than it should be because of inaccurate metering, you wouldn't be blithely saying "shit happens", and neither would regulators. Fines could well result. Explain to everyone why data should be treated differently. Why should our attitude to data metering be any different.
"Honestly, if Kim is innocent, don't you think he would have long since come to the US to get this over with?"
I cringe at the stupidity of this idea every time it's stated, and Dotcom haters just love to repeat it. Being hauled off to a foreign country, probably for years, would have a massive personal and financial cost for anyone. Why would you voluntarily do that if you believed you were innocent and there was a legal process to avoid it? Fighting extradition does not imply guilt, it implies sanity. It you were in a similar situation you'd do exactly he same thing, and it would be grossly dishonest of you to claim otherwise.
Because when you're trying to convince a largely ignorant general public and easily bought politicians that copyright infringement is a crime far worse than it actually is you need paint them a simplistic picture of the "bad guys". It's about as accurate as calling a jaywalker a rapist.
"If you'd learned to use mirrors, you'd know that you're always checking mirrors, cycling through them one after another, and even when you're not looking at them, you're still using your peripheral vision to note movement or changes happening in them. Doing that, there are no void areas."
This is a patently false statement. There are areas behind you car that are not in the mirrors' field of view. This is a simple fact, not a judgement or opinion. Every car has them, some worse than others.
"I also know where my bumpers are and where the traffic is and where traffic could possibly appear from. Once you get that overall picture it's easy to keep it updated."
What's that got to do with reversing cameras. Nobody is talking about the use of mirrors in traffic.
"I don't need to add forty-thousand dollars to the price of the vehicle for an in-car CCTV system which attempts badly to replace that."
First, nobody does because they don't cost anywhere near that. Second, nobody said anything about replacing mirrors. Cameras augment mirrors by showing more than mirrors can see. Your argument is obviously weak if you need to exaggerate costs and misstate the opposing argument.