"You compared suing doctors to suing god and the idea that the two are comparable was rebutted. I you want to consider rebuttals of your ideas to be "ad hominem" attacks then there is not even a little hope or swaying your mind. The rebuttal is for others to consider."
-AC
No, I did not compare suing doctors to suing god. I did not state that the two were comparible. You drew that (incorrect) conclusion.
My statement was to draw into question whether a lawsuit or a P&S claim is something that is indemnify an injury. My point was: if no one is to blame, and the lawsuits makes it all better, who should be sued?
If you read the full post from which you quoted, you'd see that I was not talking about the full lawsuit in general. I was talking about the P&S claims that do little to ease pain & suffering.
And the ad hominem attack was way you skewed my words with the intent to make my statements seem over-simplified and to belittle me in the face of the "others of us [who] know better in the first place".
"OK, based on several of your statements I see where you're coming from now: Doctors should be treated as gods. A lot of people believe that way, until they get hurt by a doctor, and then they tend to loose their religion. Others of us know better in the first place."
-Anonymous Coward (big surprise, there)
Unfortunately, it seems that "others of us" do not refrain from skewing statements far out of context simply to make an ad hominem attack.
If you want to take that interpretation from what I've said, then more power to you. There is little hope of swaying such a closed mind and I won't even waste my time.
"12 years later and he has not gotten over it. He lost his dreams and everything that he worked his ass off to achieve. What is that worth to you?"
-Bill
And again... how will money make that all better? If he still cries about it after 12 years, if he is still that emotionally damaged, how has that $5mil helped? How has his pain and suffering been alleviated?
I would say add counseling to the medical rehabilitation. That would be a hellova lot more appropriate than just dumping money on the problem.
Counseling, and all of the expenses you stated, is something that can be calculated. No, you can't predict the future, but you can statistically predict it with startling accuracy.
A lot of people's dreams are shattered by events beyond their control. What about them? What happens when there's not a specific person or persons to blame for the injury? Should they sue god/fate/nature? What happens if the wind blows a tree down onto my house, crushing me in my bed? What about my pain and suffering?
Just because there is a set of pockets in sight, doesn't mean that P&S should be paid until the person feels better. No disrespect to the person in your example... but we can't rely on the idea of "until you feel better". Human greed will leave that door open forever.
I'm not saying that people shouldn't be compensated for their loss. I'm not saying that P&S is not a form of loss. But there should be a limit placed on it. Currently, we rely on the definition of "reasonable". That obviously has not worked to this point.
Buc, you make a valid point. That slight impairment might seriously impact a person's ability to provide for their family based on whatever their profession was before. And that family could face some significant changes.
But let's look at this realistically here...
"How much is being able to play airplane with your child or jog with your dog to you?"
That's the kind of mentality that makes the lawyers drool. How is $5mil (number from thin air here), of which you only get a small portion, going to make up for it? Are you going to use that money to hire a person to play airplane with your kid? Are you going to pay someone to jog with your dog then tell you about it? BS. That large chunk of pain & suffering money is not used to ease P&S, it's used to make people rich. And if being rich is a good trade-off for playing with your kids... yeah. Find me one person who'd agree to that. I agree that a price or a limit cannot be placed on those kinds of things. I will also say that the answer is not "let's rub it with money until it doesn't hurt anymore".
I see where you're coming from on the idea of limits. At first blush, having someone tell you "your pain and suffering is limited to $XX" can sound pretty insulting. "How dare you tell me how much I'm suffering!".
No. What I'm talking about is limiting the amount of money you get for that.
Loss of income and loss of earning capacity is different. That can be qualified and quantified. You can sit down a math that out.
And above all, what about society on a whole. We've seen that uncapped P&S awards have driven up healthcare costs to the point that a good majority of our citizens cannot even afford to go to a doctor. We've seen that the current system is flawed. We've seen that the root of that flaw is uncontrolled litigation and P&S awards. Why not change that.
You say it shouldn't be changed, but I say it must change. Otherwise, nothing will ever be fixed.
There's one point that's missing in the discussion about Tort, malpractice, healthcare costs, et. al.
Let's break the cycle down. And I have a niche inside this cycle, so yes, I do know some of what I'm talking about.
Lawsuit is filed, and a doctor's malpractice coverage has to pay out multi-millions of dollars. The premium for the insurance is increased, which means the doctor has to pay more for it. The doctor has no choice (no, I'm right... no choice) but to pass that cost on to his source of income (basic business here). These rising costs means that healthcare insurance has to pay more for doctor's bills. That increased cost is passed onto the insurance company's source of income: us. And some of us (not accusing anyone here of this...) decide to recoup that by finding a lawyer who will drum up the simplest infraction into a multi-million dollar malpractice suit.
That's why we pay more for health insurance. So, all of you people out that got rich off of an unnecessary malpractice suit... I only wish the doctor had killed you instead of just hurting you.
The thing that's out of hand and that needs to be reformed is the "pain and suffering" claims. If yon Dr. makes a mistake while performing his duties on me, I would expect compensation for the added costs of fixing that mistake. That would include any costs for rehabilitation, added inconvenience (i.e. opening my home's doorways to make it wheelchair compatible), and maybe a bit of an "I'm sorry" payment.
What I should not get is multiple-millions of dollars because I'm going to walk with a slight limp for the rest of my life.
Bottom line is this: if I'm injured, I should be indemnified. That means I should be put back to the financial position I was at before the injury. I should not benefit from that injury.
I don't know what's worse: the fact that so many of us Americans try to retire in our 30's by winning the Lawsuit Lottery, or that there are more than enough lawyers who are willing to sell their souls to help.
So yeah, Coward at Comment#5... bash Doctors all you want... Bitch about how they make money and have nice stuff. You know what? They fucking earned it. That's who's keeping us alive. That's who's motivated themselves to endless education (they're not done after med-school, you know) in order to help other people get better... to make a positive difference in the world. How many doctors do you know decided to become a doctor as a get-rich-quick scheme? So, next time you decide to make a forum entry just so you can show how cool you are by using trite, overused and unoriginal net speak... how about we think a bit first.
...can I spell it with a "$" too!?!?! Can I? Can I?
Ok people... you're bashing MS so hard that you're completely missing the point.
This whole XB360 Arcade thing is just MS doing what they designed the 360 to do... and that's to be the "all in one" package for home entertainment. They know they won't completely push other systems out of your house. They're not trying to. What they're doing is trying to entice you with convenience.
Is anyone surprised that a business is trying to make money? Seriously people. You're acting like this is some subversive way to for MS to milk even more money out of you. They aren't making you download these. They're not required for anything.
I'm a great example of their target for these things (although, I haven't bought any yet, because it's not worth my money yet). I play the $60 360 games and the $50 Xbox games. I use it for a DVD player (although I don't have the remote). I browse for the occasional movie trailer or neat video or whatever. I like the old arcade games, so if I see one that really strikes my fancy, I'll buy it. Simply because I use my 360 as my gaming center.
I don't play many computer games anymore. I'm tired of being just under the sys req's to play them and I'm not sinking retarded money into a rig just to play this season's games and then have to upgrade next year. And with many PC games coming out multi-platform anyway, I'm making the choice to go onto a non-PC platform. My choice. meh. So they target this kind of offer of convenience at people like me. Doesn't make them evil and subversive (MS has many many other ways of being that).
Simply put, this is MS doing what they had planned to do with the 360. And we shouldn't be surprised to see them try it. It's like when the phone services added long-distance and international calling. They weren't trying to evilly subvert letters and postcards. They were just trying to win some market.
"Violent games don't cause all youth violence, but they do cause some. But either way, How is selling violent games to children some constitutional right? Yes parents should monitor their kids, but how are they expected to monitor every purchase their child makes? They can easily sneak a game into the home. We don't let kids purchase porn, or cigarettes in an effort to protect children. Why is this so different?"
-undercoverbro
You're right... selling violent video games isn't a protected right. Creating them is.
But you're missing the point. It's not a question of "where did the child get the game" or "how did he sneak it in"... it's "why didn't the child know already that the game wasn't to be played". That's called parenting. Teach the kids what games are acceptable for their age and level of development. Teach them why the violent games are different than reality, instead of just assuming that they do or do not already know this.
"If a law is created that forces an adult(hopefully the parent) to purchase a video game for the child then what is the problem? If the parent is forced to make the purchase, then we at least accomplish the parent seeing the purchase before the child gets it."
-undercoverbro
There are regulations for this. It's what the game rating system is supposed to do. I know, I know... it doens't work too well. But should't that show us that placing regulations on the distrubtion of games isn't the solution? Shouldn't we look at other options? I don't think that even more useless laws are going to help when the first one didn't.
" likewise, the constant play of violent video games deadens the impact of violence and evil in your own life. as a result, one must be constantly looking for, in the case of video games, a greater threshold of violence to satisfy your need to be entertained."
-by the way, you got it all backwards
This is assuming that the only thing one gets out of violent games is the violence. You know what I enjoyed most about GTA games? Vehicle stunts. The beating-up of random people got real old real fast. There's a lot less thrill in doing that than these politicians seem to think. They have this image of a kid somewhere euphorically pressing a button over and over again like it's the morphene dose button at a hospital. While yes, statistcally, there's got to be a kid somewhere that enjoys that, it's going to be in vast, vast minority.
" also, violent video games are often played to relieve stress, tension, or anger. this is not always bad, but playing video games habitually to relieve anger can be damaging to children. in effect they learn that the best way to relieve the pressures of life is through violence. the question then becomes for the habitual gamer mentioned above, what to do when there is no video game to turn to? what happens when your boss angers you, or someone swerves in front of you with their car? so, although the results of these violent video games may not be apparent in rampages, i hold that violent video games can be linked to rash actions in cases when there is no way to vent your anger. violent video games, in a way, condition us to vent our anger on others."
-by the way, you got it all backwards
Playing video games to "releive stress" is not just what you think it is. I play them to relieve stress... but it's not through blind violence. It's as an escape. When I play my VG's it's to destract myself from those thing causing me stress. Gives me time to regroup and tackle them later.
Over all, "got it backwards", you've been making a lot of assumptions and not backing them up. Sorry to say that your argument is weak, at best.
"The problem is not that they are highly educated..., it is that we, as voters, don't look at who we are voting for."
"So basically, we are the idiots that elect the idiots that make these statements."
-Jason
And if voting actually made a difference, I'd agree with you.
Voting is useless for two reasons:
1)How many politicians came around saying exactly what we wanted to hear, promising everything we wanted to have... only to see them not follow through?
"But they won't get re-elected if they do that". And? They're still doing that for the term that they're in office. Anyone else think it wouldn't be unreasonable to see the Parties asking for "suicide players" to step up in support of the agenda and take a career dive if the party promised to support them after? Yeah, it's a little tinfoil-hat-ish, but meh... I can see it happening.
2) The electoral college does not have to cast their vote in accordance to the majority of their state. So every single person in the state could vote for Joe Bob and the EC could cast that state's vote for the other guy. And guess what. There's no legislation that prohibits that from happening.
I'm not saying don't vote. If we don't vote, they will by default. All I'm saying is let's go into this thing with our eyes open. Remember that playing by their rules gets nothing done. So, let's change the rules.
Who else sees a major revolution within the next couple of decades?
... oh and as for the Cheetara comments... ::shudder:: furrys. ;)
"Not a problem. The US is at war. A probably never ending war. And constitutional protections don't apply in times of war. Simple."
-Anonymous Coward
I don't see how the war has anything to do with this and even politicians aren't going to try to stretch the war card that far. But what they will do is declare a war on violent media. Worked so well against drugs and terror.
"im just waiting for the day the government requires you to have internet insurance, to pay for the "damage" you cause by using wifi hot spots. "
-Daryl Licked
"User insurance
Possibly the worst idea of all. Insurance would lower security standards even further by shifting responsibilty. We need to encourage people to take more responsibility not less. Besides it cannot be applied in the same way that auto insurance or home insurance pertains to fixed assets and events. Things are already very fluid on the network, IP6 and mesh WiFi are only going to make it more so. Blame game antics will quickly get out of hand when your IP6 drinks fridge in your car decides to call home to the wrong address and does a drive by DOS on the local fire stations VOIP. Companies cannot handle the complexity of the claims or afford to hire experts in the same relatively simple and sensible way that culpability in an RTA or storm damage to a house can be decided."
-I, for one
Actually, guys, it's already here. It's called "liability insurance" which is usually automatically part of your Homeowners or Renters insurance. While there's nothing specifically stated in the policy that says "WIFI is covered", there doesn't need to be. Liability insurance is on an "all risk" basis, which means that it's covered unless it's specifically excluded.
While your insurance won't pay for lost data or damage caused to you by these evil Hakkor Hordes, it will pay if someone sues you because someone else damages them through your WIFI. It will also pay if someone sues you claiming that you damaged them at Starbucks' hotspot or wherever.
Also, Starbucks et al... Their insurance will cover if someone does naughty things with that free hotspot and someone sues Starbucks for it. So if Johnny Jack-in hacks someone while sitting at Starbucks, and that someone sues Starbucks for "providing the opportunity to commit the crime", Starbucks' insurance will pay the defense costs. And if Starbucks somehow loses, the insurance will pay that too.
"Afterall, auto insurance will still pay if you get drunk and hit another car, at least in most cases."
-Anonymous Coward
I was going to point out that you're wrong... but I just checked and you're not. In Florida, at least, your policy will provide coverage if the damages you cause are the result of an illegal activity.
But you better believe that your company will drop your a$$ as soon as they know you were driving under the influence. They'll pay that first claim, but good luck getting insurance with a DUI again.
Selling the insurance is not illegal, even if it covers you for illegal activites. It's not condoning or supporting those activites. It's just following it's policy provisions by paying out damages for which you are responsible. Same thing for this RIAA insurance. If you are responsible for paying out damages, and you have a contract that someone else will pay on your behalf, then that payor is not commiting an illegal act.
But from the translation that Erik posted, it seems that this is not really an insurance contract.
Tankafritt.nu has the right to take action that may affect the availability of this services, if necessary for technical, maintenance, operational or economical reasons.
Tankafritt.nu reserves the right to, without prior notice, change the terms for this service
The right to change w/o notice? Yeah, you're not going to see much of that in an insurance contract. There are two ways that your insurance changes:
1)If the change is not beneficial to the policyholder, it's changed at the next renewal.
2)If the change is beneficial to the policyholder, it's made "immediatly" (usually, asap after the change is authorized).
I would not be suprised if the first time you make a claim on this, they have some kind of "change" that renders your claim unpayable. And since it's not a contract that prohibit's mid-term changes, ::shrug:: whatcha gonna do?
As per the article, the prorated ETF is for new contracts and for any current contract-holders that resign for another 2yr contract.
That doesn't suprise me. I don't mean this cynically or bitterly, but cell providers will use any opportunity to roll a client into another contract. I added my girlfriend and her new phone to my account. Since my VZ contract was a plan-level they no longer offered, I had to "upgrade" my plan to the new one and that was locked in for a new two years.
meh. I don't have problems with the service... except some of the billing practices (like charging your minutes to check your vm from your own phone. wtf?!?). I can make calls in my area (and plenty of other areas) and it's not unaffordable, so, again, Meh.
And this is the kind of personal attacking I'm talking about. You haven't written anything at all about the validity of my comments... you've just attacked me. It's a logical fallacy called ad hominem. It shows that rather than demonstrate an inability to find flaws in an argument, you attack that person instead. "Youre an idiot" instead of "Youre wrong beacuse..."
See the difference?
I love the classy way you equate the Holocaust with a software vendor bundling their own software with their own OS.
The holocaust reference was used as an extreme example of how the ends do not justify the means. I wasn't drawing an analogy to MS's business practices. That's why it was a separate paragraph. Sorry you misunderstood.
What have you personally innovated? Others would have innovated/emulated.
I never said "I" would have innovated. I said "we", as in society. Again with the personal attacks. Of course I wouldn't have innovated. I'm not a software programmer or developer.
This makes you cool
... seriously man. This is sad. I know I already addressed your innovation comment, but you twisted an already out-of-context interpretation into a personal attack. ::sigh::
I guess you aren't old enough to know that Microsoft wasn't always amazingly wealthy, or maybe you are and simply too concerned with being trendy to think for yourself.
I apologize if I didn't simplify my statements enough. I understand that I may have left a little too much of it up to interpretation, trusting that others may understand what I'm talking about.
I know MS wasn't always rich. I know that they started just like most other of their at-the-time peers. My meaning was that once they had that distinct advantage over the competition they stifled it out. I'm all about using what you got. I'm all about taking advantage of your positive attributes. But what MS did was just buy off everything that could pose a threat. That is counterproductive to healthy competition.
So, Mr. Anonymous, sorry if you have this coffee-house, Mac using, elitist image of me. And I'm sorry that you were unable to challenge my views in any way other than personal attack.
1) Such statements as "SUV Drivers are assholes" and "Ricer drivers are speed-freak punks" et al, are based in observation. Overgeneralization? Yes, but they are based in what people actually see. But if you feel you don't fit that category, fine. Feel good about yourself and have a Fudgesicle(r).
2)Magnums, Hemi's, SUV's, Hybrids, trucks... whatever. This whole thread is missing the point that your car is supposed to be a tool to get you from A to B. America (primarily) and other countries have made them into status symbols. It's human nature. And its that nature that's going to be the end of us. Have a Fudgesicle(r) before we all go.
3)Responsibility of SUV's versus Small Cars... my favorite, by the way.
Ezekial said it, I believe, with "You live with the consequences of buying whatever car you bought, its called personal responsibility which nobody seems to have anymore. Its always blame someone else for your problems." But, unfortunately, he said it to illustrate that it's the small car owner's fault if they don't survive an SUV.
Sure, if the car causes the accident. But what about the greater responsibility that comes with choosing a larger vehicle? What about Semi's? Should they just scoff at all drivers that aren't in a Tractor Trailer just because he's the biggest on the road?
How about we all just drive defensively and excursive an amount of responsibility relative to the damage you can cause. If some punk in a riced out civic cuts your SUV off and dies, hey, it ain't your fault. Have a Fudgesicle(r)
4)Environment?... don't worry, we'll be out of oil long before the damage to the environment is irreversible. And besides... it's not going to destroy the earth, it's just going to make it uninhabitable to us. So have a Fudgesicle(r) while you can.
In closing... Honestly this whole thread reminds me why I'm ashamed of being an American. You all rant and rave about what group you're pigeonholed in based on what car you drive. I'm sick of being grouped in with all of the idiots and self-serving, short-sighted, elitist, money-grubbing, whiney self-centered bastards out there who share borders with me. Trust me... if I could, I'd be out of here. To borrow and adapt a quote from a wise actor playing an even wiser man: "This country needs an enema."
"Anyone who lists Microsoft with RIAA is just plain dumb."
-Dummy
Why not list them together? They are both greedy, power-hungry, controlling monopolists.
"Microsoft has driven the software market to new highs and has forced other to keep up. The ability to unify a platform and scare other companies has done more than any MS hater will ever understand.
Just run any Linux distro to realize how far back in the stone age we would be without MS."
-Dummy
So the ends justify the means? Regardless of how shady and underhanded MS has been in it's software-bundling practices... no matter how much they've hammered down the competition through superior money... no matter how much they've said through action "no... you will do it as we say because you have no choice"... all of that is ok, because the result was OK?
I guess since the Jewish community has such a strong sense of unity through shared hardships, and since the world has a sterner view against atrocities like genocide, then Hitler's actions were "ok". Hell, the ends seem pretty good in this case. Look at all the respect and understanding Jewish people have today. Yay Hitler.
Your statement about how far back in the Stone Age we'd be is BS. Are you telling me that if MS was never around, we'd never have innovated? You can't seriously believe that. Unless my memory is failing me, Apple came out before (or at the same time as) MS and Windows. And if the MS/Apple war didn't happen, someone else would have been there to fill that void.
You can't look back and say "if this didn't happen, we'd be here". Chaos Theory alone says you can't.
Sorry to take everyone off topic that far, but I feel the need to defend myself when someone attacks me instead of my points, and in such a shallow way.
"i'm going to go buy my copy of GTA tomorrow....."
-kj
On behalf of Rockstar Games and Take Two Interactive (with whom I have NO AFFILIATION), I would like to extend a warm and hearty "thank you" to all of the politicians that are fighting to keep our children safe. And an especially large "thank you" to Miss (Miss? Mrs.?) Clinton for personally taking this on as a crusade.
It means so much to RG & TTI that they can be provided with that modern American dream: free advertising and publicity. And, if I was in their shoes, I'd be proud, yes proud, that I was the cause of the MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE FACING OUR COUNTRY TODAY!
So, to all of the politicians and especially Hillary Clinton, a thank you gift is on the way... and none too soon, I might add. Hopefully, this gift can be put to good use and I wish you the best of it. Your FRICKIN CLUE should arrive soon. (SWEET JEEBUS, let it arrive soon).
"I'd suggest YOU are the one blowing things out of proportion. This study was the result of 26 interviews. It has, as far as I can tell, rated a short article in a third-rate paper."
-Matt Bennett's Mom
It doesn't matter where it happened. I'm reading it as another manifestation of the same problem. The media (and individuals like this doctor who took it upon himself to waste peoples time) fear-mongering to get ratings and/or attention.
"Oh Noze! Teh TV's are killing kids!!!!!one!1". Seriously. I don't care how small the paper was, the doctor and all those involved took this as seriously as an epidemic. The media has a responsibility in thier reporting of the news. And it chapps my ass when they do this.
A local station in my town was reporting a stalker-related murder. Nothing too out ot the ordinary. Guy follows girl home from club and ends up killing her. Tragic and scary? Yes. But the headliner on the evening news was (and I'm not making this up) "The war on terror hits close to home". That's irresponsible sensationalism.
Same thing with this article. It's nothing that's news-worthy and yet it's treated like a growing problem that's endangering our youth.
I know things won't change with regards to TVs and warnings... simply for the fact that nothing needs to change. I don't care about "the wasted big money." That wasn't the point of my rant.
"There are many other things to worry about. However, I would say, just because other things are MORE likely to happen doesn't mean we shouldn't look into and try to prevent accidents that are less likely."
-MB's Mom
Absolutely! But my point is that simple parenting is all that you need to do. Telling your kid not to climb on the TV... or better yet, make sure the damned thing is secure. Makes sense to me. What is there to "look into"? That's the gist of my point.
"I would read it more along the lines of there's some preventable accident out there and some person would rather do nothing so that the kid will die and not procreate. (Darwinism)"
-MB's Mom
OK, you "would read that more along the lines of..." Fair enough. But by accusing people of what your impression is before verifying it... that is putting words into their mouths.
You're (obviously) free to draw whatever conclusions you want from what people say. But before you go shouting "child-killer advocator!", you may want to verify that that's what they were meaning.
On the post: How Long Does The RIAA Get To Abuse The Legal System?
re: Post 17
No, I did not compare suing doctors to suing god. I did not state that the two were comparible. You drew that (incorrect) conclusion.
My statement was to draw into question whether a lawsuit or a P&S claim is something that is indemnify an injury. My point was: if no one is to blame, and the lawsuits makes it all better, who should be sued?
If you read the full post from which you quoted, you'd see that I was not talking about the full lawsuit in general. I was talking about the P&S claims that do little to ease pain & suffering.
And the ad hominem attack was way you skewed my words with the intent to make my statements seem over-simplified and to belittle me in the face of the "others of us [who] know better in the first place".
On the post: How Long Does The RIAA Get To Abuse The Legal System?
Re: Post 17
Unfortunately, it seems that "others of us" do not refrain from skewing statements far out of context simply to make an ad hominem attack.
If you want to take that interpretation from what I've said, then more power to you. There is little hope of swaying such a closed mind and I won't even waste my time.
On the post: No, Mobile Phone Antenna Booster Stickers Don't Work
Re:
But blue cars are luckier.
On the post: How Long Does The RIAA Get To Abuse The Legal System?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Post 17
And again... how will money make that all better? If he still cries about it after 12 years, if he is still that emotionally damaged, how has that $5mil helped? How has his pain and suffering been alleviated?
I would say add counseling to the medical rehabilitation. That would be a hellova lot more appropriate than just dumping money on the problem.
Counseling, and all of the expenses you stated, is something that can be calculated. No, you can't predict the future, but you can statistically predict it with startling accuracy.
A lot of people's dreams are shattered by events beyond their control. What about them? What happens when there's not a specific person or persons to blame for the injury? Should they sue god/fate/nature? What happens if the wind blows a tree down onto my house, crushing me in my bed? What about my pain and suffering?
Just because there is a set of pockets in sight, doesn't mean that P&S should be paid until the person feels better. No disrespect to the person in your example... but we can't rely on the idea of "until you feel better". Human greed will leave that door open forever.
I'm not saying that people shouldn't be compensated for their loss. I'm not saying that P&S is not a form of loss. But there should be a limit placed on it. Currently, we rely on the definition of "reasonable". That obviously has not worked to this point.
On the post: Fun With Stats, Or Damn, That's A Lot Of Lost Phones
Where the cellphones went.
FIREBOMB YOUR SOCK DRAWER BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!!!
On the post: How Long Does The RIAA Get To Abuse The Legal System?
Re: Re: Post 17
But let's look at this realistically here...
"How much is being able to play airplane with your child or jog with your dog to you?"
That's the kind of mentality that makes the lawyers drool. How is $5mil (number from thin air here), of which you only get a small portion, going to make up for it? Are you going to use that money to hire a person to play airplane with your kid? Are you going to pay someone to jog with your dog then tell you about it? BS. That large chunk of pain & suffering money is not used to ease P&S, it's used to make people rich. And if being rich is a good trade-off for playing with your kids... yeah. Find me one person who'd agree to that. I agree that a price or a limit cannot be placed on those kinds of things. I will also say that the answer is not "let's rub it with money until it doesn't hurt anymore".
I see where you're coming from on the idea of limits. At first blush, having someone tell you "your pain and suffering is limited to $XX" can sound pretty insulting. "How dare you tell me how much I'm suffering!".
No. What I'm talking about is limiting the amount of money you get for that.
Loss of income and loss of earning capacity is different. That can be qualified and quantified. You can sit down a math that out.
And above all, what about society on a whole. We've seen that uncapped P&S awards have driven up healthcare costs to the point that a good majority of our citizens cannot even afford to go to a doctor. We've seen that the current system is flawed. We've seen that the root of that flaw is uncontrolled litigation and P&S awards. Why not change that.
You say it shouldn't be changed, but I say it must change. Otherwise, nothing will ever be fixed.
On the post: How Long Does The RIAA Get To Abuse The Legal System?
Let's break the cycle down. And I have a niche inside this cycle, so yes, I do know some of what I'm talking about.
Lawsuit is filed, and a doctor's malpractice coverage has to pay out multi-millions of dollars. The premium for the insurance is increased, which means the doctor has to pay more for it. The doctor has no choice (no, I'm right... no choice) but to pass that cost on to his source of income (basic business here). These rising costs means that healthcare insurance has to pay more for doctor's bills. That increased cost is passed onto the insurance company's source of income: us. And some of us (not accusing anyone here of this...) decide to recoup that by finding a lawyer who will drum up the simplest infraction into a multi-million dollar malpractice suit.
That's why we pay more for health insurance. So, all of you people out that got rich off of an unnecessary malpractice suit... I only wish the doctor had killed you instead of just hurting you.
The thing that's out of hand and that needs to be reformed is the "pain and suffering" claims. If yon Dr. makes a mistake while performing his duties on me, I would expect compensation for the added costs of fixing that mistake. That would include any costs for rehabilitation, added inconvenience (i.e. opening my home's doorways to make it wheelchair compatible), and maybe a bit of an "I'm sorry" payment.
What I should not get is multiple-millions of dollars because I'm going to walk with a slight limp for the rest of my life.
Bottom line is this: if I'm injured, I should be indemnified. That means I should be put back to the financial position I was at before the injury. I should not benefit from that injury.
I don't know what's worse: the fact that so many of us Americans try to retire in our 30's by winning the Lawsuit Lottery, or that there are more than enough lawyers who are willing to sell their souls to help.
So yeah, Coward at Comment#5... bash Doctors all you want... Bitch about how they make money and have nice stuff. You know what? They fucking earned it. That's who's keeping us alive. That's who's motivated themselves to endless education (they're not done after med-school, you know) in order to help other people get better... to make a positive difference in the world. How many doctors do you know decided to become a doctor as a get-rich-quick scheme? So, next time you decide to make a forum entry just so you can show how cool you are by using trite, overused and unoriginal net speak... how about we think a bit first.
On the post: Microsoft Discovers That Nostalgia Sells When It Comes To The Xbox
Ohhh...
Ok people... you're bashing MS so hard that you're completely missing the point.
This whole XB360 Arcade thing is just MS doing what they designed the 360 to do... and that's to be the "all in one" package for home entertainment. They know they won't completely push other systems out of your house. They're not trying to. What they're doing is trying to entice you with convenience.
Is anyone surprised that a business is trying to make money? Seriously people. You're acting like this is some subversive way to for MS to milk even more money out of you. They aren't making you download these. They're not required for anything.
I'm a great example of their target for these things (although, I haven't bought any yet, because it's not worth my money yet). I play the $60 360 games and the $50 Xbox games. I use it for a DVD player (although I don't have the remote). I browse for the occasional movie trailer or neat video or whatever. I like the old arcade games, so if I see one that really strikes my fancy, I'll buy it. Simply because I use my 360 as my gaming center.
I don't play many computer games anymore. I'm tired of being just under the sys req's to play them and I'm not sinking retarded money into a rig just to play this season's games and then have to upgrade next year. And with many PC games coming out multi-platform anyway, I'm making the choice to go onto a non-PC platform. My choice. meh. So they target this kind of offer of convenience at people like me. Doesn't make them evil and subversive (MS has many many other ways of being that).
Simply put, this is MS doing what they had planned to do with the 360. And we shouldn't be surprised to see them try it. It's like when the phone services added long-distance and international calling. They weren't trying to evilly subvert letters and postcards. They were just trying to win some market.
OMG!!! They're trying to make money!?!?!!!one11!
On the post: Congressman Angry At The Daily Show For Sharing His Views On Video Games
Where to begin...
You're right... selling violent video games isn't a protected right. Creating them is.
But you're missing the point. It's not a question of "where did the child get the game" or "how did he sneak it in"... it's "why didn't the child know already that the game wasn't to be played". That's called parenting. Teach the kids what games are acceptable for their age and level of development. Teach them why the violent games are different than reality, instead of just assuming that they do or do not already know this.
There are regulations for this. It's what the game rating system is supposed to do. I know, I know... it doens't work too well. But should't that show us that placing regulations on the distrubtion of games isn't the solution? Shouldn't we look at other options? I don't think that even more useless laws are going to help when the first one didn't.
This is assuming that the only thing one gets out of violent games is the violence. You know what I enjoyed most about GTA games? Vehicle stunts. The beating-up of random people got real old real fast. There's a lot less thrill in doing that than these politicians seem to think. They have this image of a kid somewhere euphorically pressing a button over and over again like it's the morphene dose button at a hospital. While yes, statistcally, there's got to be a kid somewhere that enjoys that, it's going to be in vast, vast minority.
Playing video games to "releive stress" is not just what you think it is. I play them to relieve stress... but it's not through blind violence. It's as an escape. When I play my VG's it's to destract myself from those thing causing me stress. Gives me time to regroup and tackle them later.
Over all, "got it backwards", you've been making a lot of assumptions and not backing them up. Sorry to say that your argument is weak, at best.
On the post: Congressman Angry At The Daily Show For Sharing His Views On Video Games
Voting...
And if voting actually made a difference, I'd agree with you.
Voting is useless for two reasons:
1)How many politicians came around saying exactly what we wanted to hear, promising everything we wanted to have... only to see them not follow through?
"But they won't get re-elected if they do that". And? They're still doing that for the term that they're in office. Anyone else think it wouldn't be unreasonable to see the Parties asking for "suicide players" to step up in support of the agenda and take a career dive if the party promised to support them after? Yeah, it's a little tinfoil-hat-ish, but meh... I can see it happening.
2) The electoral college does not have to cast their vote in accordance to the majority of their state. So every single person in the state could vote for Joe Bob and the EC could cast that state's vote for the other guy. And guess what. There's no legislation that prohibits that from happening.
I'm not saying don't vote. If we don't vote, they will by default. All I'm saying is let's go into this thing with our eyes open. Remember that playing by their rules gets nothing done. So, let's change the rules.
Who else sees a major revolution within the next couple of decades?
... oh and as for the Cheetara comments... ::shudder:: furrys. ;)
On the post: Must Be Election Season... Politicians Desperate To Protect The Children
Re:
I don't see how the war has anything to do with this and even politicians aren't going to try to stretch the war card that far. But what they will do is declare a war on violent media. Worked so well against drugs and terror.
On the post: Pushing Back On Fear Mongering Reports About Open WiFi Networks
Insurance on WIFI
Actually, guys, it's already here. It's called "liability insurance" which is usually automatically part of your Homeowners or Renters insurance. While there's nothing specifically stated in the policy that says "WIFI is covered", there doesn't need to be. Liability insurance is on an "all risk" basis, which means that it's covered unless it's specifically excluded.
While your insurance won't pay for lost data or damage caused to you by these evil Hakkor Hordes, it will pay if someone sues you because someone else damages them through your WIFI. It will also pay if someone sues you claiming that you damaged them at Starbucks' hotspot or wherever.
Also, Starbucks et al... Their insurance will cover if someone does naughty things with that free hotspot and someone sues Starbucks for it. So if Johnny Jack-in hacks someone while sitting at Starbucks, and that someone sues Starbucks for "providing the opportunity to commit the crime", Starbucks' insurance will pay the defense costs. And if Starbucks somehow loses, the insurance will pay that too.
On the post: Insurance Policies For File Sharing?
Re:
I was going to point out that you're wrong... but I just checked and you're not. In Florida, at least, your policy will provide coverage if the damages you cause are the result of an illegal activity.
But you better believe that your company will drop your a$$ as soon as they know you were driving under the influence. They'll pay that first claim, but good luck getting insurance with a DUI again.
Selling the insurance is not illegal, even if it covers you for illegal activites. It's not condoning or supporting those activites. It's just following it's policy provisions by paying out damages for which you are responsible. Same thing for this RIAA insurance. If you are responsible for paying out damages, and you have a contract that someone else will pay on your behalf, then that payor is not commiting an illegal act.
But from the translation that Erik posted, it seems that this is not really an insurance contract.
The right to change w/o notice? Yeah, you're not going to see much of that in an insurance contract. There are two ways that your insurance changes:
1)If the change is not beneficial to the policyholder, it's changed at the next renewal.
2)If the change is beneficial to the policyholder, it's made "immediatly" (usually, asap after the change is authorized).
I would not be suprised if the first time you make a claim on this, they have some kind of "change" that renders your claim unpayable. And since it's not a contract that prohibit's mid-term changes, ::shrug:: whatcha gonna do?
On the post: Verizon Wireless To Terminate Worst Aspect Of Early Termination Fees
Re: What I want to know...
As per the article, the prorated ETF is for new contracts and for any current contract-holders that resign for another 2yr contract.
That doesn't suprise me. I don't mean this cynically or bitterly, but cell providers will use any opportunity to roll a client into another contract. I added my girlfriend and her new phone to my account. Since my VZ contract was a plan-level they no longer offered, I had to "upgrade" my plan to the new one and that was locked in for a new two years.
meh. I don't have problems with the service... except some of the billing practices (like charging your minutes to check your vm from your own phone. wtf?!?). I can make calls in my area (and plenty of other areas) and it's not unaffordable, so, again, Meh.
On the post: Cable Guy Says Portals Are Toast
Re: Re: Re: Re: Paraphrase
See the difference?
The holocaust reference was used as an extreme example of how the ends do not justify the means. I wasn't drawing an analogy to MS's business practices. That's why it was a separate paragraph. Sorry you misunderstood.
I never said "I" would have innovated. I said "we", as in society. Again with the personal attacks. Of course I wouldn't have innovated. I'm not a software programmer or developer.
... seriously man. This is sad. I know I already addressed your innovation comment, but you twisted an already out-of-context interpretation into a personal attack. ::sigh::
I apologize if I didn't simplify my statements enough. I understand that I may have left a little too much of it up to interpretation, trusting that others may understand what I'm talking about.
I know MS wasn't always rich. I know that they started just like most other of their at-the-time peers. My meaning was that once they had that distinct advantage over the competition they stifled it out. I'm all about using what you got. I'm all about taking advantage of your positive attributes. But what MS did was just buy off everything that could pose a threat. That is counterproductive to healthy competition.
So, Mr. Anonymous, sorry if you have this coffee-house, Mac using, elitist image of me. And I'm sorry that you were unable to challenge my views in any way other than personal attack.
Good luck to you with that narrow view.
On the post: SUV Drivers Really Are Bastards
Really Simple...
2)Magnums, Hemi's, SUV's, Hybrids, trucks... whatever. This whole thread is missing the point that your car is supposed to be a tool to get you from A to B. America (primarily) and other countries have made them into status symbols. It's human nature. And its that nature that's going to be the end of us. Have a Fudgesicle(r) before we all go.
3)Responsibility of SUV's versus Small Cars... my favorite, by the way.
Ezekial said it, I believe, with "You live with the consequences of buying whatever car you bought, its called personal responsibility which nobody seems to have anymore. Its always blame someone else for your problems." But, unfortunately, he said it to illustrate that it's the small car owner's fault if they don't survive an SUV.
Sure, if the car causes the accident. But what about the greater responsibility that comes with choosing a larger vehicle? What about Semi's? Should they just scoff at all drivers that aren't in a Tractor Trailer just because he's the biggest on the road?
How about we all just drive defensively and excursive an amount of responsibility relative to the damage you can cause. If some punk in a riced out civic cuts your SUV off and dies, hey, it ain't your fault. Have a Fudgesicle(r)
4)Environment?... don't worry, we'll be out of oil long before the damage to the environment is irreversible. And besides... it's not going to destroy the earth, it's just going to make it uninhabitable to us. So have a Fudgesicle(r) while you can.
In closing... Honestly this whole thread reminds me why I'm ashamed of being an American. You all rant and rave about what group you're pigeonholed in based on what car you drive. I'm sick of being grouped in with all of the idiots and self-serving, short-sighted, elitist, money-grubbing, whiney self-centered bastards out there who share borders with me. Trust me... if I could, I'd be out of here. To borrow and adapt a quote from a wise actor playing an even wiser man: "This country needs an enema."
I'm off to have a Fudgesicle(r)
On the post: Cable Guy Says Portals Are Toast
Re: Re: Paraphrase
Why not list them together? They are both greedy, power-hungry, controlling monopolists.
So the ends justify the means? Regardless of how shady and underhanded MS has been in it's software-bundling practices... no matter how much they've hammered down the competition through superior money... no matter how much they've said through action "no... you will do it as we say because you have no choice"... all of that is ok, because the result was OK?
I guess since the Jewish community has such a strong sense of unity through shared hardships, and since the world has a sterner view against atrocities like genocide, then Hitler's actions were "ok". Hell, the ends seem pretty good in this case. Look at all the respect and understanding Jewish people have today. Yay Hitler.
Your statement about how far back in the Stone Age we'd be is BS. Are you telling me that if MS was never around, we'd never have innovated? You can't seriously believe that. Unless my memory is failing me, Apple came out before (or at the same time as) MS and Windows. And if the MS/Apple war didn't happen, someone else would have been there to fill that void.
You can't look back and say "if this didn't happen, we'd be here". Chaos Theory alone says you can't.
Sorry to take everyone off topic that far, but I feel the need to defend myself when someone attacks me instead of my points, and in such a shallow way.
On the post: NY DA's Office Going After Makers Of Grand Theft Auto... On Anything It Can Find
Thank you, politicians...
On behalf of Rockstar Games and Take Two Interactive (with whom I have NO AFFILIATION), I would like to extend a warm and hearty "thank you" to all of the politicians that are fighting to keep our children safe. And an especially large "thank you" to Miss (Miss? Mrs.?) Clinton for personally taking this on as a crusade.
It means so much to RG & TTI that they can be provided with that modern American dream: free advertising and publicity. And, if I was in their shoes, I'd be proud, yes proud, that I was the cause of the MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE FACING OUR COUNTRY TODAY!
So, to all of the politicians and especially Hillary Clinton, a thank you gift is on the way... and none too soon, I might add. Hopefully, this gift can be put to good use and I wish you the best of it. Your FRICKIN CLUE should arrive soon. (SWEET JEEBUS, let it arrive soon).
On the post: Cable Guy Says Portals Are Toast
Paraphrase
"LALALALALA--I'M NOT LISTENING--LALALALALA"
There are three things I going to enjoy-- I mean almost-orgasmically enjoy-- watching fall:
1)Microsoft
2)RIAA/MPAA
3)Telco/Cableco Monopolies.
Damn it's going to be a great show. The only thing to figure out is where the best city-wide celebration partys are going to be.
On the post: Cell Phones: Safe. TV Sets: Killers
It doesn't matter where it happened. I'm reading it as another manifestation of the same problem. The media (and individuals like this doctor who took it upon himself to waste peoples time) fear-mongering to get ratings and/or attention.
"Oh Noze! Teh TV's are killing kids!!!!!one!1". Seriously. I don't care how small the paper was, the doctor and all those involved took this as seriously as an epidemic. The media has a responsibility in thier reporting of the news. And it chapps my ass when they do this.
A local station in my town was reporting a stalker-related murder. Nothing too out ot the ordinary. Guy follows girl home from club and ends up killing her. Tragic and scary? Yes. But the headliner on the evening news was (and I'm not making this up) "The war on terror hits close to home". That's irresponsible sensationalism.
Same thing with this article. It's nothing that's news-worthy and yet it's treated like a growing problem that's endangering our youth.
I know things won't change with regards to TVs and warnings... simply for the fact that nothing needs to change. I don't care about "the wasted big money." That wasn't the point of my rant.
Absolutely! But my point is that simple parenting is all that you need to do. Telling your kid not to climb on the TV... or better yet, make sure the damned thing is secure. Makes sense to me. What is there to "look into"? That's the gist of my point.
OK, you "would read that more along the lines of..." Fair enough. But by accusing people of what your impression is before verifying it... that is putting words into their mouths.
You're (obviously) free to draw whatever conclusions you want from what people say. But before you go shouting "child-killer advocator!", you may want to verify that that's what they were meaning.
Next >>