Yeah, this ranks as one of the worst posts ever, and this is AFTER it's been edited and cleaned up in the past few minutes:
The MIT Musical Theatre Group will be staging a musical version of the Star Wars Trilogy (Eps. IV through VI). There will be tap-dancing stormtroopers, singing Ewoks, etc." Apparently tickets are available if you're in the Boston area over the next week. Hopefully someone has the decency to stealth a digital camera in and post torrents before the premiere so it can be just like the features. There's no way it can be the worst Star Wars related thing out there (currently a tie between the Christmas Special and Episode I) even tho the music credits list Elton John and Andrew Loyd Webber along side John Williams.
It's funnier than most, because it's been edited since originally going up, and still reads like Daniel Cook wrote it.
The summary very clearly states that this is Internet cafes only:
Gaming areas will need a separate entertainment license and will be required to close at midnight, even at weekends. Local lawmakers say they plan to deploy teams of officers to check on popular internet spots. Those found playing games after midnight will be told to leave, while cafe owners who ignore the rules face having their licenses withdrawn.
The only people who I see putting this argument forward are people who don't have children.
The only people who I see putting this rebuttal forward are people who generally raise children unable to cope with adult life.
Look, you're worried about a 13+ year old kid getting into trouble because you can't monitor them 24 hours a day? As you said it yourself:
even if you teach them well and they're respectful of your wishes and teaching "don't do this," by definition as human beings, they will do it
And even if you put in useless laws to make parents feel better, they'll still do it. We all did it. Most children have some sort of access to porn, R-rated movies, alcohol, tobacco, illicit drugs, and yes, even violent video games. Most children always HAVE had access to these sorts of things. Most children (in fact, the overwhelming majority of them) survive just fine. How else do you think people learn to cope with these "bad" things when they become an adult? There's no magic switch that turns on at 18/21 and makes you suddenly able to deal with new things.
Where the bad parenting comes in, IMNSHO, is situations where children have been so isolated from society that they can't handle these things as adults. Those children typically go on to try to raise their own children with even stricter rules about life.
Insert any "bad for children" topic/object here, and most (if not all) of the time, it has very little to do with the children. It's the adults that think $TOPIC/OBJECT is ***BAD*** overall, but the only people they can easily keep it away from are children.
I finally came to understand that High Definition is really a marketing term and that anyone believing it is amazing has sold themselves out to big business. The truth is that HD resolution is lower than that of what you'll find on many computer screens.
Um, yeah, and how exactly is this "selling yourself out to big business"? HD isn't used to describe computer monitors. It's used to describe TELEVISIONS. He can't seriously be suggesting that HD is all marketing fluff, and there's no difference in resolution between a regular SD TV and a HDTV.
It's like saying "high-speed" internet is just a marketing term, because some people have OC3's to their office. Entirely different markets.
In a conversation like this, the obvious meaning of the word "Linux" is a fully functioning GNU/Linux distribution, consisting of the major components: the Linux kernel itself, everything related to GNU (apps, glibc, etc), and various 3rd party components as chosen by the distibution maintainer.
Sure, if you're including a 3rd party add-on scripting system that actually contains the vulnerability.
However, I was more thinking along the lines of zobot or the various RPC worms as of late.
To recap:
An OS worm means it exploits a base OS install. Something in Windows (RPC, PNP), or Linux (none so far). Morris would be the first example of this, of course:) VERY DANGEROUS WORMS.
A webserver worm means it exploits the webserver. IIS (Code Red, Nimda, et al), or Apache (we've seen a few here, names escape me at the moment). Neither IIS nor Apache is running with a default installation of either Windows or Linux, these days, so the effect is mitigated somewhat.
3rd party add-on worm means it exploits a 3rd party component that is installed entirely at a user's whim. This is one that works under Linux. Can't think of any in the Windows world, unless the recent IM worms are starting to spread without user interaction. Very limited effects, unless it's a highly popular add-on.
Well, actually, yes. Seeing as no Linux distibution installs and runs a webserver, plus one of the affected PHP utilities, by default, this one is squarely on the administrator's shoulders.
Understanding just WHAT a vulnerability affects is the key to knowing who's responsible.
You're on crack. It's not illegal to leave your car doors unlocked in Canada. Some insurance companies may decide to decline your theft coverage, but that's about it.
Oh, you may also be held liable if someone does something nasty with your car. Still, there's nothing illegal with leaving your doors unlocked. How exactly do you think this would be enforced? Random door lock checks in parking lots by the RCMP?
If we assign TLDs that everyone agrees on in the first place, we've solved the problem. You're not really adding anything to the mix.
Think about it: once TLDs are agreed upon (which is a requirement for your scenario), DNS is no longer a contentious issue. Countries will either ask each other what their DNS server for their TLD is, and put that entry into their root servers, or they won't. A country refusing to put another country's TLD entry into their root server (say, if the US wanted to block access to.cn) could just as easily block access to your CC1:CC2:00:01 scheme.
This whole issue comes down to one thing: countries can't agree on things. It's not a technical issue in the slightest. We could move to a distributed root system today (well, moreso, as some root servers aren't even in the US as it stands today), however that wouldn't solve anything. It's the fact that countries are unable to agree that is the problem.
From TFA: Any network requires some centralized control in order to function.
This statement is just plain wrong. P2P has shown that.
P2P has shown no such thing. P2P breaks spectacularly when you don't have centralized control over things like addressing and naming. About the best you could hope for is an abitration protocol that would attempt to resolve conflicts - which in essence will boil down to "trust one source more than any other". This ends up being centralized control:
Multiple DNS servers? That functionality is there in case your primary DNS doesn't answer. Wonderful if you've only ever got one entry for an entity. What happens when 2 high level (think: root) DNS servers have a conflict? DNS isn't designed to deal with this, because IT'LL NEVER ASK BOTH. You'll only ever get the first response. This is the problem.
maybe you just specify an extra level of TLD to determine which root servers you use
You mean, like "I'm in the US, so I'll use the US root server"? That's what TLDs do in the first place! Root servers exist solely to tell you which DNS servers to use below them. Another level above them would serve no purpose whatsoever.
1) Make sure every country code is managed only by that country, and give them control of all root servers for that country....
as long as countries have control of their country code root servers (if such a thing exists), then we're practically there
(I'm going to ignore the rest on.com, because that's pretty much going to default to the US, like it or not)
I don't think you understand what a root server is.
If every country controlled their own country TLD, that'd be swell, right? Well, they pretty much do as of today. For instance, Canada runs the.ca domain. The problem is, country specific domains are not what a root server cares about.
Root servers point to the country specific domains. That is, if you're looking for for a.ca domain, a root server will tell you that.ca is managed by a DNS server in Canada. That's all root servers do: they point to the DNS server that services.com,.net,.ca,.uk, etc.
Why do we need root servers? If you never left your country's domain, you'd be fine. But what if you live in Italy (.it), and want to visit a French website (.fr)? Your country's DNS server won't know about anything other than.it domains. You need a level ABOVE this telling you who to ask about.fr domains. That level is where root servers reside.
Now, why can't every country have their own root server(s)? Nothing's stopping them right now. Problem is, it would be an administrative nightmare keeping them in sync (you're talking over 300 root servers, for one thing). And what if I want to create my own.freeweed domain? Who controls that? Maybe your Italian root server will have an entry for it, but the French root server won't.
The Internet then becomes nothing more than a whole bunch of disconnected DNS zones, or for all practical purposes, hundreds of disconnected networks. SOMEONE has to centrally manage a few crucial high-level (ie: root) servers, or the whole system breaks. Now, this "someone" is currently considered to be the USA. It *could* be done by a committee made up of people from several countries (the UN, perhaps). That's the issue here.
Believe me, there's no simple way to solve this in the way you propose, unless every country goes their own way. We already went that way in the 70s/80s.
He so badly wants Quebec to not leave that he funnelled $300,000,000 of his party's money to government coffers in order to help keep Quebec in Canada.
That, or the other way around. Damn Gomery report is so confusing...
Tell me about it. I used to make a point of bringing back dozens of cans of MD whenever visiting the US, because it's a horrid drink without caffeine.
However, as of this year, we now have caffeinated MD. They call it "energy rush" or some such, and advertise it as an energy drink (like Red Bull). Somehow this gets them around our laws prohibiting caffeine in non-dark, clear, non-alcoholic carbonated beverages.
Wanna see weirder food laws? Check out margarine in Ontario.
That only works until you have a situation where you need to cut the green wire with the yellow stripe, NOT the black wire with the white stripe, in order to shut down your server before it explodes. That oxygenated fluid is pink, making colour detection damn near impossible.
Now, if you're willing to host an alien spaceship at the bottom of your datacentre, maybe they could lend a hand...
So long as you have positive air pressure under your floor, you'll get *some* effect from your perf tiles. However, as I'm sure some fluid dynamics folks will jump in with, air flow is a HARD problem. Yeah, so you're getting cold air coming up through your perfs. Well, most of them. Some of them are actually pulling air DOWN. Why?
If you're bored, check out TileFlow. It's an underfloor airflow simulator. You put in your AC units, perf tiles, floor height, baffles, you name it. It will (roughly) work out how many CFM of cold air you're going to see on a given tile. It's near-realtime (takes a second to recalculate when you make changes), so you can quickly add/remove things and see the effect. I spent some time messing with this a couple of years ago, and it's very easy to set up a situation where you have areas in your underfloow with *negative* pressure.
The article basically summed it up for me:
McFarlane said raised floors should be at least 18 inches high, and preferably 24 to 30 inches, to hold the necessary cable bundles without impeding the high volumes of air flow. But he also said those levels aren't realistic for buildings that weren't designed with that extra height.
I'd go with 24 inches MINIMUM, myself. Also, proper cable placement (ie: not just willy-nilly) goes a long way towards helping airflow issues. Like they said though, you don't always have the space.
Of course, with the introduction of a blade chassis or 4, you suddenly need one HELL of a lot more AC:)
Banks should encourage more and more people to go paper less and use online banking from what ever device the user prefers.. it saves them paper, time and money.
So do ATMs and Interac (or other debit card systems). They still charge a fee for these sorts of services.
Would I choose a bank solely based on browser support? Damn right I would. I've stayed with RBC for many more years than has been healthy for this very reason. Their online banking worked (mostly, there was a very minor issue with small fonts) with Opera for years before Firefox (Phoenix) even existed.
I pay a fair bit more in service fees than I might at another bank, but sometimes you have to put your money where your mouth is. It's worth it to me to pay good money to not have to use IE or Windows.
Shocking, because us OSS folks are supposed to want everything for free:)
It's not just Slashdot. "rediculous" is spreading far and wide on the Internet, from IRC, to IM, to blogs.
Personally, I'm watching a little race going on. Who will get legitimized first: "rediculous", or using apostrophe's (hehe) to pluralize words? (Nothing is funnier than seeing a shop's new $2000 electric sign that says "tattoo's").
I feel like an old fart these days. Back in my day, we just had there/their/they're, we're/were, and then/than to deal with, but at least most people knew they were incorrect. Now we have the above 2 examples spreading like wildfire, and NO ONE KNOWS THEY'RE SPELLING THINGS WRONG.
Online I see nearly 50% of the population not only using "rediculous", but when challenged, insisting that it's correct. Offline, the apostrophe thing is becoming pandemic. Stores do it in their advertising all the time. TV news is doing it regularly. Newspapers are getting caught.
This summer I actually bought something at a garage sale solely because the people had a sign saying "videos" instead of "video's". First time I'd seen it spelled correctly at a garage sale in literally years. Turns out they were teachers:)
Here's two for ya, both from Canada (where we stupidly consider ourselves a lot less lawsuit-happy than the US):
1. Woman goes to an office Xmas party, has a few to drink. Boss offers her a ride home, in fact pretty much insists on it. Offers to give her cab money. Woman declines, and short of physical restraint, what can you do? She drives to a bar, has a few more drinks. Bartender offers her a ride home. She refuses. She crashes her car and injures someone. Her employer and the bar are both found partially at fault for the accident.
Ok, the bar I can almost see. We have laws to prevent them from serving alcohol to people noticably drunk. But her employer?? For years after this, office Xmas parties were either cancelled or severely curtailed. Chilling effect indeed.
2. Man goes to house party. Friend has swimming pool in the back yard. man gets extremely drunk at party and decides to jump off roof of house into pool. Misses pool, sustains severe injury. Sues homeowner, and wins.
These 2 cases were well documented. I worked in the insurance industry at the time (mid 90s), and they caused a bit of an uproar.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, this ranks as one of the worst posts ever, and this is AFTER it's been edited and cleaned up in the past few minutes:
The MIT Musical Theatre Group will be staging a musical version of the Star Wars Trilogy (Eps. IV through VI). There will be tap-dancing stormtroopers, singing Ewoks, etc." Apparently tickets are available if you're in the Boston area over the next week. Hopefully someone has the decency to stealth a digital camera in and post torrents before the premiere so it can be just like the features. There's no way it can be the worst Star Wars related thing out there (currently a tie between the Christmas Special and Episode I) even tho the music credits list Elton John and Andrew Loyd Webber along side John Williams.
It's funnier than most, because it's been edited since originally going up, and still reads like Daniel Cook wrote it.
The summary very clearly states that this is Internet cafes only:
Gaming areas will need a separate entertainment license and will be required to close at midnight, even at weekends. Local lawmakers say they plan to deploy teams of officers to check on popular internet spots. Those found playing games after midnight will be told to leave, while cafe owners who ignore the rules face having their licenses withdrawn.
Its the parent's fault.
The only people who I see putting this argument forward are people who don't have children.
The only people who I see putting this rebuttal forward are people who generally raise children unable to cope with adult life.
Look, you're worried about a 13+ year old kid getting into trouble because you can't monitor them 24 hours a day? As you said it yourself:
even if you teach them well and they're respectful of your wishes and teaching "don't do this," by definition as human beings, they will do it
And even if you put in useless laws to make parents feel better, they'll still do it. We all did it. Most children have some sort of access to porn, R-rated movies, alcohol, tobacco, illicit drugs, and yes, even violent video games. Most children always HAVE had access to these sorts of things. Most children (in fact, the overwhelming majority of them) survive just fine. How else do you think people learn to cope with these "bad" things when they become an adult? There's no magic switch that turns on at 18/21 and makes you suddenly able to deal with new things.
Where the bad parenting comes in, IMNSHO, is situations where children have been so isolated from society that they can't handle these things as adults. Those children typically go on to try to raise their own children with even stricter rules about life.
Insert any "bad for children" topic/object here, and most (if not all) of the time, it has very little to do with the children. It's the adults that think $TOPIC/OBJECT is ***BAD*** overall, but the only people they can easily keep it away from are children.
Interestingly enough, your idea is PRECISELY how DeBeers makes its money.
What on earth can I be doing wrong?
You're forgetting that the plural of anecdote is still not data.
I finally came to understand that High Definition is really a marketing term and that anyone believing it is amazing has sold themselves out to big business. The truth is that HD resolution is lower than that of what you'll find on many computer screens.
Um, yeah, and how exactly is this "selling yourself out to big business"? HD isn't used to describe computer monitors. It's used to describe TELEVISIONS. He can't seriously be suggesting that HD is all marketing fluff, and there's no difference in resolution between a regular SD TV and a HDTV.
It's like saying "high-speed" internet is just a marketing term, because some people have OC3's to their office. Entirely different markets.
Vista will tell you that you have a rootkit installed
If your OS can tell you that you have a rootkit installed, it's pretty much not a rootkit. Not a very thorough one, anyway.
Sounds like it's just a subset of this.
It's called using the vernacular.
In a conversation like this, the obvious meaning of the word "Linux" is a fully functioning GNU/Linux distribution, consisting of the major components: the Linux kernel itself, everything related to GNU (apps, glibc, etc), and various 3rd party components as chosen by the distibution maintainer.
More help here.
Sure, if you're including a 3rd party add-on scripting system that actually contains the vulnerability.
:) VERY DANGEROUS WORMS.
However, I was more thinking along the lines of zobot or the various RPC worms as of late.
To recap:
An OS worm means it exploits a base OS install. Something in Windows (RPC, PNP), or Linux (none so far). Morris would be the first example of this, of course
A webserver worm means it exploits the webserver. IIS (Code Red, Nimda, et al), or Apache (we've seen a few here, names escape me at the moment). Neither IIS nor Apache is running with a default installation of either Windows or Linux, these days, so the effect is mitigated somewhat.
3rd party add-on worm means it exploits a 3rd party component that is installed entirely at a user's whim. This is one that works under Linux. Can't think of any in the Windows world, unless the recent IM worms are starting to spread without user interaction. Very limited effects, unless it's a highly popular add-on.
Well, actually, yes. Seeing as no Linux distibution installs and runs a webserver, plus one of the affected PHP utilities, by default, this one is squarely on the administrator's shoulders.
Understanding just WHAT a vulnerability affects is the key to knowing who's responsible.
Great! And in another 20 years or so, we can stop all this pesky talk about the Holocaust!
Even better: no more discussing the Bible at all!
You're on crack. It's not illegal to leave your car doors unlocked in Canada. Some insurance companies may decide to decline your theft coverage, but that's about it.
Oh, you may also be held liable if someone does something nasty with your car. Still, there's nothing illegal with leaving your doors unlocked. How exactly do you think this would be enforced? Random door lock checks in parking lots by the RCMP?
If we assign TLDs that everyone agrees on in the first place, we've solved the problem. You're not really adding anything to the mix.
.cn) could just as easily block access to your CC1:CC2:00:01 scheme.
:)
Think about it: once TLDs are agreed upon (which is a requirement for your scenario), DNS is no longer a contentious issue. Countries will either ask each other what their DNS server for their TLD is, and put that entry into their root servers, or they won't. A country refusing to put another country's TLD entry into their root server (say, if the US wanted to block access to
This whole issue comes down to one thing: countries can't agree on things. It's not a technical issue in the slightest. We could move to a distributed root system today (well, moreso, as some root servers aren't even in the US as it stands today), however that wouldn't solve anything. It's the fact that countries are unable to agree that is the problem.
Sorry, try again
From TFA: Any network requires some centralized control in order to function.
This statement is just plain wrong. P2P has shown that.
P2P has shown no such thing. P2P breaks spectacularly when you don't have centralized control over things like addressing and naming. About the best you could hope for is an abitration protocol that would attempt to resolve conflicts - which in essence will boil down to "trust one source more than any other". This ends up being centralized control:
Multiple DNS servers? That functionality is there in case your primary DNS doesn't answer. Wonderful if you've only ever got one entry for an entity. What happens when 2 high level (think: root) DNS servers have a conflict? DNS isn't designed to deal with this, because IT'LL NEVER ASK BOTH. You'll only ever get the first response. This is the problem.
maybe you just specify an extra level of TLD to determine which root servers you use
You mean, like "I'm in the US, so I'll use the US root server"? That's what TLDs do in the first place! Root servers exist solely to tell you which DNS servers to use below them. Another level above them would serve no purpose whatsoever.
1) Make sure every country code is managed only by that country, and give them control of all root servers for that country. ...
.com, because that's pretty much going to default to the US, like it or not)
.ca domain. The problem is, country specific domains are not what a root server cares about.
.ca domain, a root server will tell you that .ca is managed by a DNS server in Canada. That's all root servers do: they point to the DNS server that services .com, .net, .ca, .uk, etc.
.it domains. You need a level ABOVE this telling you who to ask about .fr domains. That level is where root servers reside.
.freeweed domain? Who controls that? Maybe your Italian root server will have an entry for it, but the French root server won't.
as long as countries have control of their country code root servers (if such a thing exists), then we're practically there
(I'm going to ignore the rest on
I don't think you understand what a root server is.
If every country controlled their own country TLD, that'd be swell, right? Well, they pretty much do as of today. For instance, Canada runs the
Root servers point to the country specific domains. That is, if you're looking for for a
Why do we need root servers? If you never left your country's domain, you'd be fine. But what if you live in Italy (.it), and want to visit a French website (.fr)? Your country's DNS server won't know about anything other than
Now, why can't every country have their own root server(s)? Nothing's stopping them right now. Problem is, it would be an administrative nightmare keeping them in sync (you're talking over 300 root servers, for one thing). And what if I want to create my own
The Internet then becomes nothing more than a whole bunch of disconnected DNS zones, or for all practical purposes, hundreds of disconnected networks. SOMEONE has to centrally manage a few crucial high-level (ie: root) servers, or the whole system breaks. Now, this "someone" is currently considered to be the USA. It *could* be done by a committee made up of people from several countries (the UN, perhaps). That's the issue here.
Believe me, there's no simple way to solve this in the way you propose, unless every country goes their own way. We already went that way in the 70s/80s.
Well, Jean Cretien, for one.
He so badly wants Quebec to not leave that he funnelled $300,000,000 of his party's money to government coffers in order to help keep Quebec in Canada.
That, or the other way around. Damn Gomery report is so confusing...
They may use different strategies to make the profit, but to think otherwise is being naive IMO.
But that's ENTIRELY THE POINT.
Unless you're equating profit with being evil.
Tell me about it. I used to make a point of bringing back dozens of cans of MD whenever visiting the US, because it's a horrid drink without caffeine.
However, as of this year, we now have caffeinated MD. They call it "energy rush" or some such, and advertise it as an energy drink (like Red Bull). Somehow this gets them around our laws prohibiting caffeine in non-dark, clear, non-alcoholic carbonated beverages.
Wanna see weirder food laws? Check out margarine in Ontario.
That only works until you have a situation where you need to cut the green wire with the yellow stripe, NOT the black wire with the white stripe, in order to shut down your server before it explodes. That oxygenated fluid is pink, making colour detection damn near impossible.
Now, if you're willing to host an alien spaceship at the bottom of your datacentre, maybe they could lend a hand...
So long as you have positive air pressure under your floor, you'll get *some* effect from your perf tiles. However, as I'm sure some fluid dynamics folks will jump in with, air flow is a HARD problem. Yeah, so you're getting cold air coming up through your perfs. Well, most of them. Some of them are actually pulling air DOWN. Why?
:)
If you're bored, check out TileFlow. It's an underfloor airflow simulator. You put in your AC units, perf tiles, floor height, baffles, you name it. It will (roughly) work out how many CFM of cold air you're going to see on a given tile. It's near-realtime (takes a second to recalculate when you make changes), so you can quickly add/remove things and see the effect. I spent some time messing with this a couple of years ago, and it's very easy to set up a situation where you have areas in your underfloow with *negative* pressure.
The article basically summed it up for me:
McFarlane said raised floors should be at least 18 inches high, and preferably 24 to 30 inches, to hold the necessary cable bundles without impeding the high volumes of air flow. But he also said those levels aren't realistic for buildings that weren't designed with that extra height.
I'd go with 24 inches MINIMUM, myself. Also, proper cable placement (ie: not just willy-nilly) goes a long way towards helping airflow issues. Like they said though, you don't always have the space.
Of course, with the introduction of a blade chassis or 4, you suddenly need one HELL of a lot more AC
Banks should encourage more and more people to go paper less and use online banking from what ever device the user prefers.. it saves them paper, time and money.
So do ATMs and Interac (or other debit card systems). They still charge a fee for these sorts of services.
Would I choose a bank solely based on browser support? Damn right I would. I've stayed with RBC for many more years than has been healthy for this very reason. Their online banking worked (mostly, there was a very minor issue with small fonts) with Opera for years before Firefox (Phoenix) even existed.
:)
I pay a fair bit more in service fees than I might at another bank, but sometimes you have to put your money where your mouth is. It's worth it to me to pay good money to not have to use IE or Windows.
Shocking, because us OSS folks are supposed to want everything for free
It's not just Slashdot. "rediculous" is spreading far and wide on the Internet, from IRC, to IM, to blogs.
:)
Personally, I'm watching a little race going on. Who will get legitimized first: "rediculous", or using apostrophe's (hehe) to pluralize words? (Nothing is funnier than seeing a shop's new $2000 electric sign that says "tattoo's").
I feel like an old fart these days. Back in my day, we just had there/their/they're, we're/were, and then/than to deal with, but at least most people knew they were incorrect. Now we have the above 2 examples spreading like wildfire, and NO ONE KNOWS THEY'RE SPELLING THINGS WRONG.
Online I see nearly 50% of the population not only using "rediculous", but when challenged, insisting that it's correct. Offline, the apostrophe thing is becoming pandemic. Stores do it in their advertising all the time. TV news is doing it regularly. Newspapers are getting caught.
This summer I actually bought something at a garage sale solely because the people had a sign saying "videos" instead of "video's". First time I'd seen it spelled correctly at a garage sale in literally years. Turns out they were teachers
Here's two for ya, both from Canada (where we stupidly consider ourselves a lot less lawsuit-happy than the US):
1. Woman goes to an office Xmas party, has a few to drink. Boss offers her a ride home, in fact pretty much insists on it. Offers to give her cab money. Woman declines, and short of physical restraint, what can you do? She drives to a bar, has a few more drinks. Bartender offers her a ride home. She refuses. She crashes her car and injures someone. Her employer and the bar are both found partially at fault for the accident.
Ok, the bar I can almost see. We have laws to prevent them from serving alcohol to people noticably drunk. But her employer?? For years after this, office Xmas parties were either cancelled or severely curtailed. Chilling effect indeed.
2. Man goes to house party. Friend has swimming pool in the back yard. man gets extremely drunk at party and decides to jump off roof of house into pool. Misses pool, sustains severe injury. Sues homeowner, and wins.
These 2 cases were well documented. I worked in the insurance industry at the time (mid 90s), and they caused a bit of an uproar.