"I'm often baffled by people who can't conceive of anyone seeing issues differently than themselves, and who can't understand why someone might have different priorities than they do."
Speaking for myself, I realize people see issues differently than myself and have different priorities. However, it is the people who fit into that category who won't question their beliefs, wish to impose their beliefs on others, and otherwise cannot use some form of logical thinking to back up those beliefs and viewpoints that bother me. If you can give a reasoned explanation of your viewpoint I can respect that. Many (most?) cannot. If you are willing to consider new information, I can respect that. Many (most?) won't.
In short, I understand why someone would vote for Bush. But based on morality/ethics in general? You have got to be kidding. Based on specific beliefs, yes. Those are NOT the same thing.
"e.g. there was supposedly no change in turnout of young voters, but the news was *full* of anecdotal evidence of massive youth voter turnout..."
Well, that's why the information is ANECDOTAL. As in, has no particular relation to reality. Youth voter turnout makes a good story but frankly I would be surprised if it was particularly large. The basic fact of the matter is that young people don't vote, old people do and you can see the results of this in policy decisions.
Hell, I know a few young people at work who HATE Bush and his policies but either DID NOT VOTE or WERE NOT REGISTERED TO VOTE. If that isn't lazy, I don't know what is. Oh, and this is in Ohio.....
"Also, the numbers from Florida just look a little... weird."
Well, aside from that state being a little odd:) so what? Any evidence the numbers are wrong, other than your desire for them to be so? Otherwise that is a worthless statement.
"Also, to quote Dilbert, intelligence has less practical applications than you might think."
And what does intelligence have to do with knowledge again?
"Encouraging the supposedly-uniformed to not vote would simply mean that the arrogant and egotistical (who will be sure that they are among the enlightened) will be disproportionately represented. While the shy, the timid, and the insecure, who may actually be better informed, will stay home."
Maybe you should read the post you are responding to first:) There is a difference between encouraging someone not to vote and not encouraging someone to vote.
"You have accurately counted the pile which was already inaccurate before you got your hands on it."
"The errors occurred before you even got the pile of ballots to count."
That may be true, but as long as the count of the ballots considered to be valid by LAW is correct, the election results ARE correct.
Whether a ballot is valid and how many valid ballots you have are two different issues. The election results certify the number of valid ballots. Counting CANNOT be subjective. Either the ballot is valid or it isn't. For that, you have to follow the laws.
It doesn't mean you have to LIKE those laws or that they are GOOD laws or that people weren't disenfranchised, etc.... But that is not/should not/must not be an issue for those who count the ballots.
"Did you completely forget about what happened in Florida 4 years ago? This isn't just an academic exercize, it's quite real. Hanging chads, pregnant chads, all kinds of nonsense."
He didn't. His previous post stated that the problem in vote COUNTING occured because there were no rules in place. The process of putting those rules in place was messy, true. A similar event couldn't happen in Ohio, for instance, because the relevant rules are already in place (x number of corners punched = vote, otherwise = no vote, etc.)
"But the error rate emerges when someone thinks they voted for one candidate, but either weren't counted at all, or were counted for the wrong person."
Yes, but that is not a problem with COUNTING the votes. It is a problem with CASTING the votes. If I am not mistaken, he stated that ALL VALID votes are counted. If they are not valid, they are not counted, if they were cast incorrectly, that cannot be solved by the COUNTING process. It is too late.
If you have a problem with what is considered a "valid" vote, then you need to change the laws. The counting process MUST follow the laws in place. Florida was a mess because those laws were ambiguous or lacking. They came to an accurate count when the law was clarified.
Hmm, maybe precise would be a better term than accurate...
A note about "challengers". The people working at my ward (01044G and H combined) said the challenger stated that they could merely watch the voting process, not actually challenge the right of anyone to vote. Interesting.
They also wondered why there were so many people with ID/voting card (didn't realize there was an advertising blitz going on-must have ID, can't be prevented from voting, blah, blah, etc.-heck I barely watch TV and only listen to radio and have been bombarded with that spiel....)
I had to wait an hour and a half, which was pretty good (pathetic) apparently. The other ward at the same location was worse. This was starting at 4:30pm. It wasn't any better the rest of the day according to poll workers-they hadn't had time for lunch/break since getting there in the morning. The main problem was that they had four machines (the other ward had more, I think) and one machine was out of service for a while (either hardware error or someone voted on it that had to do a provisional ballot, I don't really know). Electronic. Brand unknown-they have been this way for years.
Polls aren't going to close at 7:30pm...(closer to (9:30pm probably, at least for those in line at 7:30pm).
Location was poor-unused storefront in a mall. Imagine two long lines of people (down center of mall) trying to snake into narrow entrance. Oh, and people had to get out by the same entrance. Insufficient room/organization to process people. The poll workers almost begged us to complain to the county board of elections....
So, went smoothly, except for the incompetent moron in charge of the process(Hey, we are expecting a record turn out, so lets only provide a few voting machines to each ward so we will have massive lines). Can't wait to hear the excuses-voting shouldn't take this long in a developed country. Of course, if your goal is to get new voters never to vote again....
THIS is the reason I think electronic voting is a BAD IDEA. If you have X machines, you can't deal with record turn outs (because they will never buy enough machines.....) It would have been better with paper, pencil/pen, and some optical scanners. Cheaper and would scale better.
"I find it very sad that people who try to stand up for basic tenets of this country's heritage, such as the notion that the country was founded as 'one nation under God', are disregarded as far-right fundimentalists."
Well, considering the founders were by and large not Christian (Deists would be a better description) and that the word "God" does not appear in the Constitution I think the notion that the country was founded as "one nation under God" is INCORRECT. Note that I did not say they were atheists-but that there was a strong inclination against a GOVERNMENT run (and supported) religion.
"If you were referring to those who are pro-life or who oppose giving extra rights to gays and lesbians, then you fail to realize that these views are held by vast numbers of americans and cannot therefore be described as far-right fundamentalist views."
And this is the reason for the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Protection against the tyranny of the majority. And yes, the concepts of pro-life and anti-gay/lesbian views can be considered far-right fundamentalist views because they are HELD mainly by them (although I find it interesting how you worded things-proof that how you frame the question or debate often leads you to the answer you want-most people are agains "extra" rights for instance, not many are agains "equal" rights....) In other words, how many people who hold these views DON'T consider themselves conservative Christians?
"On the contrary, it is those who strive to tear down our birthright and make it illegal to worship how we choose because it might make someone else uncomfortable that should be feared."
Yes, I fear them. It tends to be people cloaked in the Christian religion. The right to worship how we choose includes the right NOT to worship. The right to be left alone by the government. Government dictating who can get married, who has rights, etc. based on RELIGIOUS ideals is a BAD idea.
Let's face it, when most people say government shouldn't support religon, they really mean they shouldn't support a religion I DON'T APPROVE OF. Conversely, religion in government is okay, as long as it is one I APPROVE OF. You can see it in the poll results. The ten commandants-fine, the bible-fine, the Koran-uh, well, we'll get back to you....
If individual religions, not supported by the government want to do that, I don't care. Any religious person who sees government imposing religious ideals as a good thing is a fool. Because after you have invited it in, it may start imposing things YOU don't like...
"Even coffee at 155 degrees wouldn't give you serious burns."
You are WRONG.
"It takes 2 seconds for a child to receive third degree burns from water at 150 degrees. It takes 5 seconds if the water is at 140 degrees, and 30 seconds at 130 degrees." -From the National Ag Safety Database.
I find similar information for adults.
"Your pot of coffee at home is more like 140 degrees."
And if it is, you can't brew a good cup of coffee....
"For practical purposes, it was as dangerous as a cup of concentrated acid, with no warning attached."
You are extremely ignorant. Spilling a cup of concentrated acid on you can result in DEATH. 3rd degree burns would be a GOOD outcome with concentrated acid.
The jurors were idiots? Her lawyers were better than McDonalds? And I really believe that. I don't see any GOOD reasons for a lawsuit among your points. Sure there were reasons FOR suing, but that is different.
Okay, your points:
"1. She had no reason to be aware that spilling McDonald's coffee would be so much more harmful to her than other coffee (it was roughly 40 degrees hotter than home brewed would have been and 30 degrees hotter than most other vendors).
2. McDonald's did (she wasn't the first to sue them).
3. McDonald's didn't do anything to decrease the danger, e.g.:
a) Make the coffee cooler (which McDonald's did post verdict)."
Coffee when brewed is just under boiling. Certainly in excess of 180degrees F. That could cause 3rd degree burns easily. Coffee IS inherently hazardous. Hell, people are told to turn their water heaters to 120 degrees (from 140 and above) to prevent accidental scalding.
Other than not selling coffee, what do you propose? Brew it improperly, keep it under 120 degrees F (ugh!), put idiot warnings on the cup?
"b) Make it possible to add the creamer and sugar without removing the lid (i.e. make a safer lid)."
So, don't sell to idiots? I don't know, perhaps put the cream and sugar in the hole you DRINK out of? The lid on the cup put there to prevent you from spilling HOT liquid on your person?
"c) Warn her that the coffee was much hotter than other coffee and would scald if spilled."
Huh? Warn her that hot coffee is hot? Ours is brewed properly? See previous point about not selling to idiots....
"4. Finally, McDonald's made no attempt to negotiate with her. After all, she just wanted her medical (and later legal) bills paid."
Yes, and this is why I carry health insurance. So when I do something stupid, or something bad happens to me ("bad things happen to good people all the time") I only have to pay for a fraction of my medical bills. Heck, if I can't afford insurance, I likely won't be charged....
"Instead, they let it go to a jury, who bent them over."
"I have an ethical dilemma: I've spilled Mc Donald's coffee on my XBox. The XBox no longer work, and, the coffee is now undrinkable. Who should I sue?"
Well, if you are in the US, you sue MS and McDonald's.
"If you want to require Microsoft to warranty their product for a "reasonable" timeframe then you have to be willing to pay more for your XBox."
Really? Then why do other people in countries with better "implied" warranties get to purchase the unit for the same price? Perhaps because it doesn't cost MS much, if anything?
"As much as I hate having an extended warranty shoved down my throat at a retail outlet, I do appreciate the fact that at least I have a choice."
My fundamental problem with extended warranties is this: I don't know the failure rate of the product I am buying. The manufacturer knows-this is how they set the warranty in part. The manufacturer isn't going to tell me (likely), or if they do tell me, I won't be able to compare rates between different manufacturers, or to trust that their rate is correct.
In other words, they are withholding important information needed to make an ACCURATE assessment of which product to buy. Which means, it is to their advantage. Equal information is rather important for capitalism to work properly. So I see no problem with legislating improved "implied" warranties. They are needed because "consumers" are being taking advantage of by manufacturers and there is nothing a "consumer" can realistically do about it.
"At least making the extended warranty a separate purchase gives the consumer the choice."
Yeah, kind of like asking someone in a dark cave if they would like a lighter after telling them it is potentially filled with explosive gas and dangerous pits....
I (corporation X) will not produce cheap quality goods without making such fact known regardless of the unfair amounts of cash I could get.
I understand that if I use cheap quality parts in my products to save money without informing those who buy my products, my warranty or legal costs may be higher than expected.
"I'd rather their systems actually be secure in the first place. That means less losses to fraud, which means more profits, which means they can offer better interest rates on their accounts."
Or a more secure system may mean less losses to fraud but higher costs and less profits.
And what profits (or losses) have to do with interest rates on accounts I really don't know. In other words, they charge as much interest as they can get away with and offer as little interest as possible to maximize profits. If their costs go down, that means their profits go up. Not that your rates go down.
"No redesigns are required, but then NASA tends to be a little touchy on changing mission profiles."
Gee, I wonder why? Things seem to blow up when they deviate from them.
"Obviously, there is no maneuvering ability once the Titan releases its cargo, so they need to make sure they get it right the first time."
That, I'm afraid, would be totally unacceptable for space station deliveries. Do you want to risk the station over one rocket? If it can go wrong, it will. Therefore, additional systems would be needed, at additional cost, time for testing, etc. Pretty soon that rocket would probably act like a shuttle "mini-me" with a similar cost....
This, of course, assumes the rocket is CAPABLE of launching some of the specialized cargo (weight may not be the most important feature here). All of these safety (control) features will of course reduce payload.
"The delta could probably be fitted with a payload module that mimics the shuttle's cargo bay."
"could probably"?!? I am willing to nominate you for the position of "PHB" because you obviously show no clue...
I believe it is far closer to "could not". Because if it was possible (both economic and technically) it would have been proposed as a shuttle replacement.
"Powell offered some good responses, pointing out that enforcement of decency is not just a Republican agenda but bipartisan."
No, a GOOD response would have been to define "decency" and the FCC process to determine this. Because he didn't, I assume they can't or won't. If they (FCC) can't or won't define how they enforce the rules, perhaps they shouldn't be enforcing them....
Thanks for the info. I have always wondered how the costs of the procedings might affect insurance rates, rather than just the payouts, which everyone seems to argue about. I have always wondered if limiting damages would have much of an effect if there were still lots of cases...
"She gets sued every time a baby comes out wrong."
Certainly seems like a case should be made for more education. I have had doctors very clearly indicate risks involved in medical procedures.
"Her customers don't have any way to deal with the costs associated with a problem child, so they try to get the money they'll need from the legal lottery. The hospital's insurance company gererally settles for 10-20k since it's cheaper than going to trial and elimites the risk of a hundred million dollar judgement."
So, I assume they don't have insurance? Because if the medical problem is bad, 10 - 20K isn't going to do anything. Perhaps we need universal insurance? Perhaps there ought to be a higher standard of proof in these cases? Or perhaps your friend isn't a very good doctor (unlikely, but possible...)
Of course, if your statement is accurate, this is the reason that tort reform doesn't do much-a few large lawsuits aren't the problem, the sheer numbers are....
"And that's all I need to hear. Rrequiring voters to meet any sort of intelligence or literacy standards is illegal, immoral, and a violation of civil, and democratic rights. Period."
But there doesn't seem to be a problem requiring voters not to have a felony. I suspect those who commit felonies are not the brightest or most literate (as a whole). Sounds like an intelligence or literacy test to me....
I don't know your opinion on the above matter. I assume you are opposed to ANY restrictions on voting. But it is well established in this country that there CAN be restrictions placed on voting eligibility. You can make a case against intelligence (not the person's fault) but why against literacy? That, like a felony, is a choice. If one is allowed, why not the other? They both disenfranchise similar groups of people. Just curious.
"Is it really that bloody hard to go to the proper voting place to vote?"
Yep. Here's an example (from Ohio). I move. I get a new voting location (eventually). I send in the confirmation card (yes, I did move.) Of course why they need that if they allow "motor voter" registration and my address on my license matches my current address.... Go to correct polling place. Well, sorry, we have no record of you on our official lists. You are however on our "possibles" list (paraphrased-I don't know the exact term they used). You must cast a provisional ballot.
Technically, I was in the "wrong" location through no fault of my own (even though it was MY proper polling location). I have noticed in Ohio that after doing this, and having my vote recorded (I assume), they send me another card to send back in the mail to confirm that this is REALLY my polling place. WTF?!? If this isn't designed to screw things up, I don't know what is. What if the person never got this card? Or it didn't get back to the board of elections in time (30 days before election? I believe). In Ohio, you are required to submit your change of address to the BMV within 10 days of moving (and they confirm this). This, coupled with the ability to register to vote there means I shouldn't have to contact my board of elections AT ALL (ever try to do this, and get a reply.....) Why the hell can't they get the proper confirmation info from the BMV? The system is DESIGNED to exclude voters and cause screw ups. The bad thing is that I don't think it is deliberate.
Slashdot Mirror
"I'm often baffled by people who can't conceive of anyone seeing issues differently than themselves, and who can't understand why someone might have different priorities than they do."
Speaking for myself, I realize people see issues differently than myself and have different priorities. However, it is the people who fit into that category who won't question their beliefs, wish to impose their beliefs on others, and otherwise cannot use some form of logical thinking to back up those beliefs and viewpoints that bother me. If you can give a reasoned explanation of your viewpoint I can respect that. Many (most?) cannot. If you are willing to consider new information, I can respect that. Many (most?) won't.
In short, I understand why someone would vote for Bush. But based on morality/ethics in general? You have got to be kidding. Based on specific beliefs, yes. Those are NOT the same thing.
"e.g. there was supposedly no change in turnout of young voters, but the news was *full* of anecdotal evidence of massive youth voter turnout..."
:) so what? Any evidence the numbers are wrong, other than your desire for them to be so? Otherwise that is a worthless statement.
Well, that's why the information is ANECDOTAL. As in, has no particular relation to reality. Youth voter turnout makes a good story but frankly I would be surprised if it was particularly large. The basic fact of the matter is that young people don't vote, old people do and you can see the results of this in policy decisions.
Hell, I know a few young people at work who HATE Bush and his policies but either DID NOT VOTE or WERE NOT REGISTERED TO VOTE. If that isn't lazy, I don't know what is. Oh, and this is in Ohio.....
"Also, the numbers from Florida just look a little... weird."
Well, aside from that state being a little odd
"Also, to quote Dilbert, intelligence has less practical applications than you might think."
:) There is a difference between encouraging someone not to vote and not encouraging someone to vote.
And what does intelligence have to do with knowledge again?
"Encouraging the supposedly-uniformed to not vote would simply mean that the arrogant and egotistical (who will be sure that they are among the enlightened) will be disproportionately represented. While the shy, the timid, and the insecure, who may actually be better informed, will stay home."
Maybe you should read the post you are responding to first
"You have accurately counted the pile which was already inaccurate before you got your hands on it."
"The errors occurred before you even got the pile of ballots to count."
That may be true, but as long as the count of the ballots considered to be valid by LAW is correct, the election results ARE correct.
Whether a ballot is valid and how many valid ballots you have are two different issues. The election results certify the number of valid ballots. Counting CANNOT be subjective. Either the ballot is valid or it isn't. For that, you have to follow the laws.
It doesn't mean you have to LIKE those laws or that they are GOOD laws or that people weren't disenfranchised, etc.... But that is not/should not/must not be an issue for those who count the ballots.
"Did you completely forget about what happened in Florida 4 years ago? This isn't just an academic exercize, it's quite real. Hanging chads, pregnant chads, all kinds of nonsense."
He didn't. His previous post stated that the problem in vote COUNTING occured because there were no rules in place. The process of putting those rules in place was messy, true. A similar event couldn't happen in Ohio, for instance, because the relevant rules are already in place (x number of corners punched = vote, otherwise = no vote, etc.)
"But the error rate emerges when someone thinks they voted for one candidate, but either weren't counted at all, or were counted for the wrong person."
Yes, but that is not a problem with COUNTING the votes. It is a problem with CASTING the votes. If I am not mistaken, he stated that ALL VALID votes are counted. If they are not valid, they are not counted, if they were cast incorrectly, that cannot be solved by the COUNTING process. It is too late.
If you have a problem with what is considered a "valid" vote, then you need to change the laws. The counting process MUST follow the laws in place. Florida was a mess because those laws were ambiguous or lacking. They came to an accurate count when the law was clarified.
Hmm, maybe precise would be a better term than accurate...
A note about "challengers". The people working at my ward (01044G and H combined) said the challenger stated that they could merely watch the voting process, not actually challenge the right of anyone to vote. Interesting.
They also wondered why there were so many people with ID/voting card (didn't realize there was an advertising blitz going on-must have ID, can't be prevented from voting, blah, blah, etc.-heck I barely watch TV and only listen to radio and have been bombarded with that spiel....)
I had to wait an hour and a half, which was pretty good (pathetic) apparently. The other ward at the same location was worse. This was starting at 4:30pm. It wasn't any better the rest of the day according to poll workers-they hadn't had time for lunch/break since getting there in the morning. The main problem was that they had four machines (the other ward had more, I think) and one machine was out of service for a while (either hardware error or someone voted on it that had to do a provisional ballot, I don't really know). Electronic. Brand unknown-they have been this way for years.
Polls aren't going to close at 7:30pm...(closer to (9:30pm probably, at least for those in line at 7:30pm).
Location was poor-unused storefront in a mall. Imagine two long lines of people (down center of mall) trying to snake into narrow entrance. Oh, and people had to get out by the same entrance. Insufficient room/organization to process people. The poll workers almost begged us to complain to the county board of elections....
So, went smoothly, except for the incompetent moron in charge of the process(Hey, we are expecting a record turn out, so lets only provide a few voting machines to each ward so we will have massive lines). Can't wait to hear the excuses-voting shouldn't take this long in a developed country. Of course, if your goal is to get new voters never to vote again....
THIS is the reason I think electronic voting is a BAD IDEA. If you have X machines, you can't deal with record turn outs (because they will never buy enough machines.....) It would have been better with paper, pencil/pen, and some optical scanners. Cheaper and would scale better.
"I find it very sad that people who try to stand up for basic tenets of this country's heritage, such as the notion that the country was founded as 'one nation under God', are disregarded as far-right fundimentalists."
Well, considering the founders were by and large not Christian (Deists would be a better description) and that the word "God" does not appear in the Constitution I think the notion that the country was founded as "one nation under God" is INCORRECT. Note that I did not say they were atheists-but that there was a strong inclination against a GOVERNMENT run (and supported) religion.
"If you were referring to those who are pro-life or who oppose giving extra rights to gays and lesbians, then you fail to realize that these views are held by vast numbers of americans and cannot therefore be described as far-right fundamentalist views."
And this is the reason for the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Protection against the tyranny of the majority. And yes, the concepts of pro-life and anti-gay/lesbian views can be considered far-right fundamentalist views because they are HELD mainly by them (although I find it interesting how you worded things-proof that how you frame the question or debate often leads you to the answer you want-most people are agains "extra" rights for instance, not many are agains "equal" rights....) In other words, how many people who hold these views DON'T consider themselves conservative Christians?
"On the contrary, it is those who strive to tear down our birthright and make it illegal to worship how we choose because it might make someone else uncomfortable that should be feared."
Yes, I fear them. It tends to be people cloaked in the Christian religion. The right to worship how we choose includes the right NOT to worship. The right to be left alone by the government. Government dictating who can get married, who has rights, etc. based on RELIGIOUS ideals is a BAD idea.
Let's face it, when most people say government shouldn't support religon, they really mean they shouldn't support a religion I DON'T APPROVE OF. Conversely, religion in government is okay, as long as it is one I APPROVE OF. You can see it in the poll results. The ten commandants-fine, the bible-fine, the Koran-uh, well, we'll get back to you....
If individual religions, not supported by the government want to do that, I don't care. Any religious person who sees government imposing religious ideals as a good thing is a fool. Because after you have invited it in, it may start imposing things YOU don't like...
"Even coffee at 155 degrees wouldn't give you serious burns."
You are WRONG.
"It takes 2 seconds for a child to receive third degree burns from water at 150 degrees. It takes 5 seconds if the water is at 140 degrees, and 30 seconds at 130 degrees." -From the National Ag Safety Database.
I find similar information for adults.
"Your pot of coffee at home is more like 140 degrees."
And if it is, you can't brew a good cup of coffee....
"For practical purposes, it was as dangerous as a cup of concentrated acid, with no warning attached."
You are extremely ignorant. Spilling a cup of concentrated acid on you can result in DEATH. 3rd degree burns would be a GOOD outcome with concentrated acid.
"The main reasons she won the suit were:"
The jurors were idiots? Her lawyers were better than McDonalds? And I really believe that. I don't see any GOOD reasons for a lawsuit among your points. Sure there were reasons FOR suing, but that is different.
Okay, your points:
"1. She had no reason to be aware that spilling McDonald's coffee would be so much more harmful to her than other coffee (it was roughly 40 degrees hotter than home brewed would have been and 30 degrees hotter than most other vendors).
2. McDonald's did (she wasn't the first to sue them).
3. McDonald's didn't do anything to decrease the danger, e.g.:
a) Make the coffee cooler (which McDonald's did post verdict)."
Coffee when brewed is just under boiling. Certainly in excess of 180degrees F. That could cause 3rd degree burns easily. Coffee IS inherently hazardous. Hell, people are told to turn their water heaters to 120 degrees (from 140 and above) to prevent accidental scalding.
Other than not selling coffee, what do you propose? Brew it improperly, keep it under 120 degrees F (ugh!), put idiot warnings on the cup?
"b) Make it possible to add the creamer and sugar without removing the lid (i.e. make a safer lid)."
So, don't sell to idiots? I don't know, perhaps put the cream and sugar in the hole you DRINK out of? The lid on the cup put there to prevent you from spilling HOT liquid on your person?
"c) Warn her that the coffee was much hotter than other coffee and would scald if spilled."
Huh? Warn her that hot coffee is hot? Ours is brewed properly? See previous point about not selling to idiots....
"4. Finally, McDonald's made no attempt to negotiate with her. After all, she just wanted her medical (and later legal) bills paid."
Yes, and this is why I carry health insurance. So when I do something stupid, or something bad happens to me ("bad things happen to good people all the time") I only have to pay for a fraction of my medical bills. Heck, if I can't afford insurance, I likely won't be charged....
"Instead, they let it go to a jury, who bent them over."
This we agree on.
"I have an ethical dilemma:
:)
I've spilled Mc Donald's coffee on my XBox. The XBox no longer work, and, the coffee is now undrinkable. Who should I sue?"
Well, if you are in the US, you sue MS and McDonald's.
Everywhere else, well, I guess you are SOL
"If you want to require Microsoft to warranty their product for a "reasonable" timeframe then you have to be willing to pay more for your XBox."
Really? Then why do other people in countries with better "implied" warranties get to purchase the unit for the same price? Perhaps because it doesn't cost MS much, if anything?
"As much as I hate having an extended warranty shoved down my throat at a retail outlet, I do appreciate the fact that at least I have a choice."
My fundamental problem with extended warranties is this: I don't know the failure rate of the product I am buying. The manufacturer knows-this is how they set the warranty in part. The manufacturer isn't going to tell me (likely), or if they do tell me, I won't be able to compare rates between different manufacturers, or to trust that their rate is correct.
In other words, they are withholding important information needed to make an ACCURATE assessment of which product to buy. Which means, it is to their advantage. Equal information is rather important for capitalism to work properly. So I see no problem with legislating improved "implied" warranties. They are needed because "consumers" are being taking advantage of by manufacturers and there is nothing a "consumer" can realistically do about it.
"At least making the extended warranty a separate purchase gives the consumer the choice."
Yeah, kind of like asking someone in a dark cave if they would like a lighter after telling them it is potentially filled with explosive gas and dangerous pits....
I (corporation X) will not produce cheap quality goods without making such fact known regardless of the unfair amounts of cash I could get.
I understand that if I use cheap quality parts in my products to save money without informing those who buy my products, my warranty or legal costs may be higher than expected.
"I'd rather their systems actually be secure in the first place. That means less losses to fraud, which means more profits, which means they can offer better interest rates on their accounts."
Or a more secure system may mean less losses to fraud but higher costs and less profits.
And what profits (or losses) have to do with interest rates on accounts I really don't know. In other words, they charge as much interest as they can get away with and offer as little interest as possible to maximize profits. If their costs go down, that means their profits go up. Not that your rates go down.
"No redesigns are required, but then NASA tends to be a little touchy on changing mission profiles."
Gee, I wonder why? Things seem to blow up when they deviate from them.
"Obviously, there is no maneuvering ability once the Titan releases its cargo, so they need to make sure they get it right the first time."
That, I'm afraid, would be totally unacceptable for space station deliveries. Do you want to risk the station over one rocket? If it can go wrong, it will. Therefore, additional systems would be needed, at additional cost, time for testing, etc. Pretty soon that rocket would probably act like a shuttle "mini-me" with a similar cost....
This, of course, assumes the rocket is CAPABLE of launching some of the specialized cargo (weight may not be the most important feature here). All of these safety (control) features will of course reduce payload.
"The delta could probably be fitted with a payload module that mimics the shuttle's cargo bay."
"could probably"?!? I am willing to nominate you for the position of "PHB" because you obviously show no clue...
I believe it is far closer to "could not". Because if it was possible (both economic and technically) it would have been proposed as a shuttle replacement.
Sounds like a good plan, but what exactly is a "VCR"?
"Powell offered some good responses, pointing out that enforcement of decency is not just a Republican agenda but bipartisan."
No, a GOOD response would have been to define "decency" and the FCC process to determine this. Because he didn't, I assume they can't or won't. If they (FCC) can't or won't define how they enforce the rules, perhaps they shouldn't be enforcing them....
Thanks for the info. I have always wondered how the costs of the procedings might affect insurance rates, rather than just the payouts, which everyone seems to argue about. I have always wondered if limiting damages would have much of an effect if there were still lots of cases...
It would be nice to have an actual study....
"She gets sued every time a baby comes out wrong."
Certainly seems like a case should be made for more education. I have had doctors very clearly indicate risks involved in medical procedures.
"Her customers don't have any way to deal with the costs associated with a problem child, so they try to get the money they'll need from the legal lottery. The hospital's insurance company gererally settles for 10-20k since it's cheaper than going to trial and elimites the risk of a hundred million dollar judgement."
So, I assume they don't have insurance? Because if the medical problem is bad, 10 - 20K isn't going to do anything. Perhaps we need universal insurance? Perhaps there ought to be a higher standard of proof in these cases? Or perhaps your friend isn't a very good doctor (unlikely, but possible...)
Of course, if your statement is accurate, this is the reason that tort reform doesn't do much-a few large lawsuits aren't the problem, the sheer numbers are....
"And that's all I need to hear. Rrequiring voters to meet any sort of intelligence or literacy standards is illegal, immoral, and a violation of civil, and democratic rights. Period."
But there doesn't seem to be a problem requiring voters not to have a felony. I suspect those who commit felonies are not the brightest or most literate (as a whole). Sounds like an intelligence or literacy test to me....
I don't know your opinion on the above matter. I assume you are opposed to ANY restrictions on voting. But it is well established in this country that there CAN be restrictions placed on voting eligibility. You can make a case against intelligence (not the person's fault) but why against literacy? That, like a felony, is a choice. If one is allowed, why not the other? They both disenfranchise similar groups of people. Just curious.
"In a democracy, you may not get the government you need or want. But at least, you get the government you deserve."
:)
Actually, I get the government that MOST of the public deserves.... That doesn't make me feel better, but it does explain a LOT
A poll has very little to do with this concept called "facts". :)
Remember you do not want to know how laws, sausages, and polls are made....
"Is it really that bloody hard to go to the proper voting place to vote?"
Yep. Here's an example (from Ohio). I move. I get a new voting location (eventually). I send in the confirmation card (yes, I did move.) Of course why they need that if they allow "motor voter" registration and my address on my license matches my current address.... Go to correct polling place. Well, sorry, we have no record of you on our official lists. You are however on our "possibles" list (paraphrased-I don't know the exact term they used). You must cast a provisional ballot.
Technically, I was in the "wrong" location through no fault of my own (even though it was MY proper polling location). I have noticed in Ohio that after doing this, and having my vote recorded (I assume), they send me another card to send back in the mail to confirm that this is REALLY my polling place. WTF?!? If this isn't designed to screw things up, I don't know what is. What if the person never got this card? Or it didn't get back to the board of elections in time (30 days before election? I believe). In Ohio, you are required to submit your change of address to the BMV within 10 days of moving (and they confirm this). This, coupled with the ability to register to vote there means I shouldn't have to contact my board of elections AT ALL (ever try to do this, and get a reply.....) Why the hell can't they get the proper confirmation info from the BMV? The system is DESIGNED to exclude voters and cause screw ups. The bad thing is that I don't think it is deliberate.
"I'd like to have my personal nuke then..."
:)
Go ahead. Of course, you will have to buy the parts and supplies locally and build it yourself