NOTE: At the moment WikiLeaks is not accepting new submissions due to re-engineering improvements the site to make it both more secure and more user-friendly. Since we are not currently accepting submissions during the re-engineering, we have also temporarily closed our online chat support for how to make a submission. We anticipate reopening the electronic drop box and live chat support in the near future.
I bet that particular "feature" can be chalked up the the general craptitude of the.NET Compact Framework they've chosen to ship with. It probably uses too much memory, deadlocks, can't relinquish devices or otherwise does nasty things which assume only one running instance.
I love how a comment containing abject speculation based on absolutely *no* evidence gets modded up insightful. I mean, really, mods? Are you *that* fucking stupid?
I'd rather see abject speculation identified as such than see it presented as certain fact.
Also, the policy may have a clause that causes forfeiture of unused premiums in the event of fraud.
I'm betting this would be the case, and I'd bet that any law obligating an insurer to reimburse premiums pro rata would have a similar exception. Of course, ymmv.
I would bet that if your car insurance was terminated because you torched your car to collect on your policy, the insurance company wouldn't have to refund you any part of your paid premiums.
Copyright in both photos and private messages remains with the creator by default, so there is a basis for a claim.
Photos, yes, but note that copyright in photos is held by the photographer, not the subject of the photo. Probably not a relevant distinction here. But copyright in sent messages? Hmmm, as far as I know, there's no such thing, at least in my jurisdiction. "Say it with dinner, say it with flowers, but never, never say it in a letter." There's a reason for that, the reason being that the recipient can publish your messages with impunity, and you have no recourse. (again, this is likely not true in every jurisdiction)
That's great for the doctor, but what about the patient? Don't you think they have a right to have their claim heard in front of a jury of their peers?
I didn't miss the definition of peers and how it relates to juries, it was covered in my first year law classes, thanks. My point is that the original definition is exactly the problem with the idea of setting up a jury filled with doctors and "medical men." In a situation like that, where the vast majority of suits would be Joe Blow suing his doctor, Joe Blow doesn't have a chance in hell if the jury is full of doctors. They'll much more often than not side with the doctor, just because they're in the same social class, leaving Joe Blow out in the cold.
If you have to fuck around with the composition of the jury to get your system to work right, at least you should split the jury evenly between members of each side's social classes, to balance it out. Better still would be not fuck around with the jury, and instead either have professional juries, i.e. twelve ordinary people who do the jury duty as their job for a set term and on the same type of cases, so that they could learn something about the cases they do;* or skip the jury all together and have three- person tribunals as I suggested above.
*The professional jury is not a new idea at all, and in fact grand juries as we know them are descended from quasi-professional juries. The major difference being that grand juries used to sit for longer periods of time; the juries heard the trials instead of just issuing indictments; and jurors would actively question witnesses, argue points, and were generally much more ornery than juries are now. I wouldn't mind seeing a return to this practice, myself, but it's pretty expensive.
This idea might work, but it might also have some unintended and unforseen consequences. I myself wonder at the wisdom of having a jury at all, if the jurors are going to be selected on the basis of education and social class. Better to have multi-party tribunals (one judge, one doctor, one layperson).
Just to go on a tangent, I'm having a conceptual difficulty with this whole discussion. In Canada, winning malpractice suits against doctors is damn hard, because the duty of care owed by a doctor is defined more leniently than it would be for just anybody, and because doctors' insurers (unlike, say, auto insurers) fight those claims to the bitter end. Winners do tend to get big awards, but there just aren't that many winners, and losers risk having to pay the good Doctor's costs in the action.
Now note that we don't have specially chosen juries, or specially trained judges presiding over these cases. They're just harder to win, and they get defended more often, because of a strictly legal difference in the kind of negligence at issue. A slight change in the legal definitions, and a loser-pays system of costs, are pretty much all it takes to cut down on malpractice suits.
In general, the legal system is so complex now that subtle changes in the right places can have large effects. The trick is to find the right place to make the change.
Which is fine, but that's not what aurispector said. I think your idea does have some merit, and may be a good possible solution. But I don't get that at all from aurispector's post.
While I don't necessarily disagree with your assessment of the problem, I don't think your solution - to have doctors police themselves in malpractice claims - is a very just one. Doctors on a committee have a lot of self-interest in seeing that fewer malpractice awards get handed out, whether deserved or not. Besides, don't the professional colleges already regulate doctors, and mete out penalties including training, suspension or revocation of licenses? None of these things provide any remedy to the person who's been injured by a doctor's negligence.
While I don't disagree with you, my impression is that the two AVs have been trading the bloatware king title between them, and that losing one of them would take away the other's incentive to compete. But yes, right now I'd rather see McAfee go too.
I have a better solution: if your military's activities can't stand up to the scrutiny of the people who pay the bills and elect the leaders, maybe you shouldn't be involved in those activities.
Maybe they're not being dishonest; maybe they're being mindful of the fact that setting up precise boundaries between these different species is not as simple as you think. What precisely makes for a different species? The human-like species would have been very closely related genetically, and in some cases may have been able to interbreed naturally. So are they different species, or sub-species of the same species? Don't be fooled by the simple nomenclature system into thinking that species taxonomy is a simple thing.
Slashdot Mirror
From their submissions page:
NOTE: At the moment WikiLeaks is not accepting new submissions due to re-engineering improvements the site to make it both more secure and more user-friendly. Since we are not currently accepting submissions during the re-engineering, we have also temporarily closed our online chat support for how to make a submission. We anticipate reopening the electronic drop box and live chat support in the near future.
Maybe this has something to do with it.
Turned out several of the students parents' were lawyers, and the university got sued hard...
Interviewer: "Wow! You have great grades! You must have studied really hard!"
Interviewee: "No, my parents sued the university for higher grades for me."
Interviewer: "Well, being that we're a law firm, did your parents apply for the job? We'll hire them!"
Fixed.
GP was trying to be funny/sad. For some of us, it worked.
I bet that particular "feature" can be chalked up the the general craptitude of the .NET Compact Framework they've chosen to ship with. It probably uses too much memory, deadlocks, can't relinquish devices or otherwise does nasty things which assume only one running instance.
I love how a comment containing abject speculation based on absolutely *no* evidence gets modded up insightful. I mean, really, mods? Are you *that* fucking stupid?
I'd rather see abject speculation identified as such than see it presented as certain fact.
Merriam-Webster lists it... prophesy
I hate to say it, but you probably do.
Yours, a Canadian.
Also, the policy may have a clause that causes forfeiture of unused premiums in the event of fraud.
I'm betting this would be the case, and I'd bet that any law obligating an insurer to reimburse premiums pro rata would have a similar exception. Of course, ymmv.
I would bet that if your car insurance was terminated because you torched your car to collect on your policy, the insurance company wouldn't have to refund you any part of your paid premiums.
Copyright in both photos and private messages remains with the creator by default, so there is a basis for a claim.
Photos, yes, but note that copyright in photos is held by the photographer, not the subject of the photo. Probably not a relevant distinction here. But copyright in sent messages? Hmmm, as far as I know, there's no such thing, at least in my jurisdiction. "Say it with dinner, say it with flowers, but never, never say it in a letter." There's a reason for that, the reason being that the recipient can publish your messages with impunity, and you have no recourse. (again, this is likely not true in every jurisdiction)
That's great for the doctor, but what about the patient? Don't you think they have a right to have their claim heard in front of a jury of their peers?
I didn't miss the definition of peers and how it relates to juries, it was covered in my first year law classes, thanks. My point is that the original definition is exactly the problem with the idea of setting up a jury filled with doctors and "medical men." In a situation like that, where the vast majority of suits would be Joe Blow suing his doctor, Joe Blow doesn't have a chance in hell if the jury is full of doctors. They'll much more often than not side with the doctor, just because they're in the same social class, leaving Joe Blow out in the cold.
If you have to fuck around with the composition of the jury to get your system to work right, at least you should split the jury evenly between members of each side's social classes, to balance it out. Better still would be not fuck around with the jury, and instead either have professional juries, i.e. twelve ordinary people who do the jury duty as their job for a set term and on the same type of cases, so that they could learn something about the cases they do;* or skip the jury all together and have three- person tribunals as I suggested above.
*The professional jury is not a new idea at all, and in fact grand juries as we know them are descended from quasi-professional juries. The major difference being that grand juries used to sit for longer periods of time; the juries heard the trials instead of just issuing indictments; and jurors would actively question witnesses, argue points, and were generally much more ornery than juries are now. I wouldn't mind seeing a return to this practice, myself, but it's pretty expensive.
This idea might work, but it might also have some unintended and unforseen consequences. I myself wonder at the wisdom of having a jury at all, if the jurors are going to be selected on the basis of education and social class. Better to have multi-party tribunals (one judge, one doctor, one layperson).
Just to go on a tangent, I'm having a conceptual difficulty with this whole discussion. In Canada, winning malpractice suits against doctors is damn hard, because the duty of care owed by a doctor is defined more leniently than it would be for just anybody, and because doctors' insurers (unlike, say, auto insurers) fight those claims to the bitter end. Winners do tend to get big awards, but there just aren't that many winners, and losers risk having to pay the good Doctor's costs in the action.
Now note that we don't have specially chosen juries, or specially trained judges presiding over these cases. They're just harder to win, and they get defended more often, because of a strictly legal difference in the kind of negligence at issue. A slight change in the legal definitions, and a loser-pays system of costs, are pretty much all it takes to cut down on malpractice suits.
In general, the legal system is so complex now that subtle changes in the right places can have large effects. The trick is to find the right place to make the change.
Which is fine, but that's not what aurispector said. I think your idea does have some merit, and may be a good possible solution. But I don't get that at all from aurispector's post.
While I don't necessarily disagree with your assessment of the problem, I don't think your solution - to have doctors police themselves in malpractice claims - is a very just one. Doctors on a committee have a lot of self-interest in seeing that fewer malpractice awards get handed out, whether deserved or not. Besides, don't the professional colleges already regulate doctors, and mete out penalties including training, suspension or revocation of licenses? None of these things provide any remedy to the person who's been injured by a doctor's negligence.
In the US.
Argument from your own inadequacy isn't really argument.
Needs more +1 Funny. Are you going for the elusive +5 Flamebait?
You could RTFA. Oh, right. Carry on then.
You're a tiresome pedant. Try to relax and have some fun.
While I don't disagree with you, my impression is that the two AVs have been trading the bloatware king title between them, and that losing one of them would take away the other's incentive to compete. But yes, right now I'd rather see McAfee go too.
Oh come on, no more McAfee, and Norton will just step into their shoes.
How about potayto/potawto?
I have a better solution: if your military's activities can't stand up to the scrutiny of the people who pay the bills and elect the leaders, maybe you shouldn't be involved in those activities.
So you haven't heard the recent sabre-rattling at Iran, then?
Maybe they're not being dishonest; maybe they're being mindful of the fact that setting up precise boundaries between these different species is not as simple as you think. What precisely makes for a different species? The human-like species would have been very closely related genetically, and in some cases may have been able to interbreed naturally. So are they different species, or sub-species of the same species? Don't be fooled by the simple nomenclature system into thinking that species taxonomy is a simple thing.
only a theory. Like gravity and maths.
Mods, this should have been your clue.
+6 flamebate on other sites, this sort of talk is you know...
Did you mods even read this?