I hope some games, like movies and music, are remade, with better graphics and such, hopefully without destroying the game we all came to remember.;)
I think the reason we remember a lot of those games is because of the great job they did with limited graphics like the original Wing Commander (1990?) at the time. Games like Beam Rider on the Atari were also pretty special because of the involved and busy graphics. Given today's multi-million dollar investments in a single game, high speed/resolution graphics, and the newer gamers' expectations, I don't think we'll see many true remakes aside from some of the quick-and-dirty arcade collection ports that some companies are selling for a few dollars.
You're right. They wanted to steal a Mustang? Idiots!
It was a '66 Fastback. 289, 4-speed with short-throw linkage, heavy clutch, traction bars, Holly 600 CFM with vacuum secondaries and electric choke, manifold, polished and ported, and headers. The crowning touch was a custom aluminum glove compartment to replace that ridiculous cardboard stock thing. Still not worth stealing? It's also why I didn't have money for a new ignition switch.:)
And who is proposing, and pushing for, tort reform? Its not the lawyers dumbass.
And who is opposing tort reform because it would mean less money for the parasites? It's the lawyers, dumbass. Hey, it has been only two days. You're skipping your meds, and you know that's dangerous.
Okay, you can have the title of the Best Slashdot Poster, Ever, for the next time you're in the shower. You can say to yourself, "ahh, I'm such a much better speller than that dude on Slashdot, oh yeahhhh"
You sure do show a lot of interest in my rear end and what I might do in the shower. I worry about you. Actually, what I like to do is sit at my desk (fully clothed - don't get excited), read comments like yours and think, "I am so glad I don't post off-the-wall, name-calling rants like that."
There is no way they could find that out unless the criminal had an IQ of 70 and then he's lucky to get out of the house with pants on.
Most criminals are not Lex Luthor. Why do you think there are so many dumb-criminal stories? They really are stupid for the most part. I had one thief (or thieves) fail to steal my Mustang because they jimmied the door and pulled the ignition lock cylinder but then couldn't start the engine. The thing was the key switch had broken and it was so expensive to replace that I had rerouted the wiring to two easily visible/traced switches for ignition and starter. They aren't real bright.
Uh, right. If the corps weren't worried about people with lawyers standing up to them, then why are they so hot and bothered for "tort reform"?
The only people really worried about tort reform are lawyers, and that would be because . . . ? I know it's hard, but try to think it through.
What do you mean, anchient? Go check the dates, its the 6th and the 3rd. And no.
"Anchient"? Even after I spelled it for you, you couldn't get it right. What a hoot. A three-day-old article on Slashdot is ancient. You're responding to a three-day-old response? What do you do, read and answer only when your medication wears off?
Uh huh. Maybe a good 2x4 would knock some sense into you? You're wrong, we're right, and we proved it to you. But you just wont give it up.
By all means, bring a 2x4 to a gunfight. That's what you've been doing so far. I'd be happy to cap you and do a lasting service for the gene pool if you want. You (or your "we") haven't proved anything except that you're unable to understand reality. I've heard there is some new stem cell therapy that could work wonders for your condition, but I'm not a doctor, so I can't help you. Sorry.
You probably want to add yourself to my freaks list now in order to show your displeasure. If you have problems, respond in three days (when the medication wears off), and I'll give you detailed instructions on how to do it.
Normally, I'd steer clear of a smoking response like that, but I have to agree with much it.
The password rules at work have become so restrictive that everyone now has their passwords written down in easily found places, and it has become a running joke.
The rules require upper- and lower-case alpha, mumerics, and punctuation or special characters. The password may not contain a dictionary word, so 5cow_iza-bote is not allowed because cow is a word. If it was allowed, you would not be allowed to use 5cow, bote, or iza in any subsequent password for 18 months.
I used to use misspelled words with numeric prepends for passwords, and as far as I know, they were never guessed in the decades I used them. Now it's just a matter of carrying around a list of passwords. Some security.
Really? I've been using Linux/Mozilla/Firefox for long enough that I'm not familiar with the whole spyware problem. I guess it's not a good idea after all.
They should buys some popups advertising for the popup-blocker
That's modded funny, but it makes some sense. Why not a popup saying, "If you were using Firefox, this ad wouldn't be in your face. Use this link to download now."
They might be non profit company making free software but they are threatening other companies' buisness model.
With Microsoft bundling/downloading IE for _free_, how does Firefox threaten the business model of other companies? I can think of only one company currently trying to sell a browser, and more power to 'em, but that's an uphill battle, and Firefox is not their biggest competitor.
So from a story based on a press release, which are in effect an advertisement.
Obviously, the ads were not very widespread or well-targeted. So much for the highly educated hard work involved.
You still have not explained how you would have gone about getting your six dollars without enlisting the help of those "parasitic" lawyers.
I suggest you get a dictionary and look up "parasite". The lawyers were not a party to the original transactions but feed off the reparation. If your car is stolen and then recovered by the police, does the officer get half your car? Does he get a percentage of it? You will say that the officer is already being paid - so don't - if legal services were freely available as a tax-paid public service for all, that would be fine. I could use the term "leech" instead if that's better for you.
Well, at least the irony of that statement isn't lost one of us.
There wasn't any irony involved, so once again, the meaning was lost on you. To put it in simple terms, the name-calling was childish as was the mock response.
I never said break the law. What I said was that it is unethical for you not to work to the best of your abilities when someone placed his trust in you. There's a whole field of ethics about that. It's called "professional ethics.
You really don't have any idea about professional ethics. Professional ethics do not allow you to put your client/customer's interests above the good of society or the rules you agreed to. I suggest you go look at the rules of ethics for members of the ACM, IEEE, or Computer Society before you spout off about what professional ethics are.
Geragos didn't have anything to do with OJ.
Did you notice the period between them? Two different instances of slimy lawyer ethics and circumventing the law. You can't figure out why it would be unethical for Geragos to buy some prime real estate next to a courthouse and display an exhibit that was disallowed by the court? Then, when others turned it into a shrine to the victims, Geragos quickly removed it. No clue? None whatsoever?
They don't lie. They make an argument by selectively illustrating facts.
Which would be like selectively ignoring the rest of the facts? You are truly CEO material. Give up your lawyering ambitions.
It doesn't doesnt matter whether or not the lawyer's client is guilty or innocent. Everyone deserves a strong defense. It's not for the defendent's lawyer to decide whether or not he is guilty. That's the jury's job.
This may be the first thing you've said that I almost agree with. However, going back to that oath, a lawyer should not be defending (as in not guilty) a defendant who the lawyer believes or knows is guilty.
Perhaps your congressman would take them more seriously if you didn't use terms "congresscritters". Terms like that aren't witty. They're juvenile. Intellgent people don't use them. Neither should you.
It should be fairly obvious that I am polite when I write my senator, just like I am when replying to people who call me names. If the use of "congresscritters" is avoided by "Intellgent" people, then there are some mainstream columnists as well as few hundred-thousand Slashbots who are thereby rendered un-"intellgent". Jargon is. Deal.
I do not know of a single congressmen that practices law while serving in congress.
Obviously. Making law is the flip side of practicing law, and if you luck out, you get a black robe and get to interpret the law! Although I have to admit I have more respect for judges than lawyers or lawmakers.
Because there was no relevance. Instead of providing context, you just repeat them.
If you then provide the "context" in a response, perhaps you didn't think about it hard enough.
Yes I left an out. In light of this most grevious error I fall on my sword.
The greatest trick was giving the "common man" the idea that standing up for himself by suing (frequently your only option with little to no government regulation and where corporations have all the rights of individuals and none of the responsibilities) is a bad thing because it might put money in the hands of lawyers. And twits like you have bought it hook, line and sinker.
The greatest trick was making the clueless believe that they could stand up against corporations by hiring a lawyer. And twits like you have bought it hook, line and sinker (and wallet). Go sue Microsoft for providing defective software, and see how far you get. And what are you doing in this ancient, deadly boring argument anyway? Got two accounts? The childish name-calling seems pretty familiar.
Pray tell, how would you have gone about receiving your six dollars? And while you're at it, tell me how you found out that there was even a class action suit for you to join?
I see you've figured out the difference between prey and pray. I found out about the suit from a story on Slashdot and followed the link.
You mean like those lawyers who ran advertisements saying, "Did you buy a CD? You may be owed money! Call us today!"? You're a hypocrite.
What ads? Neener neener. I'm not, you are! Geez, grow up, guy.
You seem to have a lack of the basic understanding of how lawyers operate. Someone off the street comes to them and says, "I want to sue this person." The lawyer then sues that person, and is paid. The transaction is no different from your afore mentioned sanitation workers. ("Do you need trash picked up? Call us!")
Perhaps I do have a basic misunderstanding of how lawyers operate. I thought that they had to take a professional oath and that they were supposed to decline frivoluous claims and advise their clients not to do dishonest things. Sanitation workers aren't violating ethics by handling your trash, while many lawyers are.
If I found out my lawyer wasn't doing everything in his power to win, then I'd fire him, and so would you.
You seem to have no concern for ethics. Again, Geragos. O.J. Simpson. I believe that lawyers are not supposed to lie or knowingly help the guilty to circumvent justice. When a lawyer says, "Don't tell me anything except you're innocent," that a breach of ethics IMHO.
If you don't like how the law the law is being applied, write your congressman and have the law changed.
As I pointed out previously, my congresscritters are lawyers who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, and they don't really agree with my views, but you were completely unable to see the relevance.
Twice now you've tried to use non sequiturs anecdotes as evidence to buttress your argument. Contrary to helping your argument, it reveals your lack of skills in forming a coherent argument. Take a rhetoric class. You need it.
Your inability to make cognitive connections (or HTML tags) without having your nose rubbed in it does not constitute a lack on my part. You've pretty much dumped all your original points as they've been dismantled and professed confusion over the rest, which makes this a really one-sided and soon to be discontinued conversation.
Your brother could have filed a document indicating that he was serving as his own legal counsel. The fact that he didn't realize that he could have done that shows that he was unqualified to act in legal proceedings and was in desperate need of trained legal counsel. Hiring a lawyer was the prudent choice.
Once again, you choose to ignore the point: One should not have be a lawyer in order to obtain one's employment records. It's a boondoggle to ensure more business for lawyers, with the rules written by lawyers.
I'm saying the lawyers deserve to [be] financially compensated for services rendered.
I don't see the word "fairly" in there anywhere, but then I didn't expect to.
You're complaining that someone got paid for bringing you check that all you did to receive was file up behind the sign that read "free money". Now, who's the parasite?
This should be easy, even for you. The parasites are the ones who made all the money while not being involved in the original monetary transactions: the lawyers.
You mean those "ambulance chasers" that tilt the economic incentives towards safety instead of risk? Those lawyers? How dare they!
I mean like those lawyers who put late night commercials on TV asking if you have pain from your car accident and feel you weren't given the TLC you deserve, and how you really deserve some money for your supposed pain.
How do lawyers pervert the law into their favor? Now they may pervert the law in their client's favor, but I've never heard of lawyers perverting the law for lawyers. There's a big difference.
So perverting the law to help a client is okay? Gee, weren't you just saying lawers enforce the law? They pervert the law in order to make a reputation and more money. Does the name Geragos and his purchase of property near a courthouse mean anything to you?
The same civil lawyer that was facing off against you yesterday, can be yours today if you pay his fee. In fact, that happens all the time.
Which proves what? Apparently, at least half of all lawyers are willing to take money for arguing the wrong position and lose. Great ethics.
Lawyers don't bleed both sides. They are hired by both sides. If you don't want to pay one, don't hire one!
BS. The system is rigged to force you to hire one. My brother was set up for termination (and he was backed up by other employees) and could not get documents from his (previous) employer because they would only release them to legal counsel. It took a retainer to get the documents.
Since the awarde money wasn't yours to begin with, it's not like the lawyers took any money from you. Of course you agreed to the terms when you hired the lawyer, but I'm sure that's just a technicality.
So you're saying all settlement money really belongs to the lawyers even though it is in compensation for a wrong done to someone else. The injured party should just be grateful for some scraps from the lawyer's table. How's your law degree coming along? You can try to as hard as you want to make a silk purse from a sow's ear, but it still won't happen.
Well in this case, the members of the class action suit had the better lawyers. They won a settlement that resulted in a cash pay out.
The settlement was a pittance for the victims. Obviously, the RIAA had better lawyers, or the amount would have been greater. The lawyers on both sides made the real money.
Do you realize how many highly educated and highly skilled people were involved in bringing the suit and negotiating the settlement? Do you realize how much each one of those individuals is worth in the market?
Do you realize how incredibly valuable ambulance chasers are to society?
I fail to see what tort has to do with undue influence over politicians.
When you can buy the right to issue subpoenas and bypass due process, that's a problem. The majority of US senators are lawyers.
When did I say that? Of course they're capitalists. The vast majority society is capitalists.
The vast majority of society are workers who don't hold allegiance to any particular economic model. You said lawyers enforce the law. They don't. Law enforcement officers enforce the law. Lawyers do their best to twist the law to their own advantage. They often help the guilty circumvent the law.
Lawyers are skilled professionals. Yes, they get paid very well, and by and large they deserve it. Anyone does who:
1. invests large amounds of time, effort, and money in an education
2. perfoms complex tasks that most of society can not
3. actually does their job well
Fine, you just described programmers, accountants, nurses, teachers, clergy, and a number of other occupations where the practitioner won't make millions of dollars for a year's work.
I never said lawyers act out of the goodness of their heart. What I said was they perform a needed function of society . ..
So do sanitation engineers, and IMHO, they're far more valuable to society than a bunch of parasites who make a living from fomenting confrontations and bleeding both sides while trying to pervert the law in their favor.
No. A lot of people would be much worse off, and a few would be much better off. The reason corporations hate lawyers and class action lawsuites is because it enables the plebs to band togother and actually enforce the law.
And who has all the best lawyers? Any class action suit (like the one against the RIAA) results in a check for six dollars (I got one) for the injured party and millions for the lawyers.
Produce nothing? They change someones behavior, and through extension society as a whole. Without lawyers, we'd be anarchy. Like it or not lawyers enforce the laws.
Sure they do. Despite all the civil and criminal prosecutions of the RIAA and its members, it's the RIAA that is making (and enforcing) the laws by buying legislation.
You may think "yeah kill all the lawyers", but its a very sophmoric attitude.
Despite the TV shows you watch, lawyers are not out save the world or adopt all the orphans they run across while doing community service for their coke problems; they're out to make money. The definition of mixed feelings is watching a bus full of lawyers go over a cliff -- with two empty seats.
Carrying it a step further, I'm leaning towards the idea that, once you've filed a lawsuit, an out-of-court settlement should no longer be possible. Why should it? If two companies can't agree before going to court, why should the courts be used to pressure one side or the other to give in?
The court often directs the opposing parties to reach a settlement. If one party doesn't try or negotiate in good faith, then they are in trouble.
For knuckle-dragging trolls, that would be Vietnam, sometimes called a police action, but then so was Korea. There was a Falklands War in the 80's? Do tell. You mean that territorial scuffle where the Brits lost a couple of boats to South American colonists with French weapons? History repeats itself on a much smaller scale - hardly a war.
Further proof that the 60's generation was a bunch of hypocritical creeps. As Phil Ochs said in the 60s, of the "liberal": "10 degrees to the left of center most times, 10 degrees to the right of center when it affects them personally."
How is that "proof" of anything? Many members of the 60's generation (male and female) volunteered for service (or served otherwise) in a war that became unpopular and were thanked with disdain and epithets when they returned home. Then they got jobs and paid taxes while being denied service-releated benefits. Now, it's accusations of hypocrisy. You know, I'm having flashbacks from all the LSD you've been told I took back then, and I'm feeling like getting medieval on your @$$. Where's your tent, camper? You're looking a lot like a clueless officer right now. [Fade in with Hendrix tune]
The people willing to enter long pages of code were not average. They were the hobbyists, enthusiasts and professionals. Average people were not smarter or more computer literate than they are today.
The people who owned computers then were absolutely more computer literate because there was no MS telling them they didn't need to be and because computer usage required a modicum of understanding. The average users were "hobbyists, enthusiasts and professionals" with all that hobbyist implies. Transcription requires only typing skills, not a CS degree.
Slashdot Mirror
I hope some games, like movies and music, are remade, with better graphics and such, hopefully without destroying the game we all came to remember. ;)
I think the reason we remember a lot of those games is because of the great job they did with limited graphics like the original Wing Commander (1990?) at the time. Games like Beam Rider on the Atari were also pretty special because of the involved and busy graphics. Given today's multi-million dollar investments in a single game, high speed/resolution graphics, and the newer gamers' expectations, I don't think we'll see many true remakes aside from some of the quick-and-dirty arcade collection ports that some companies are selling for a few dollars.
You're right. They wanted to steal a Mustang? Idiots!
It was a '66 Fastback. 289, 4-speed with short-throw linkage, heavy clutch, traction bars, Holly 600 CFM with vacuum secondaries and electric choke, manifold, polished and ported, and headers. The crowning touch was a custom aluminum glove compartment to replace that ridiculous cardboard stock thing. Still not worth stealing? It's also why I didn't have money for a new ignition switch. :)
And who is proposing, and pushing for, tort reform? Its not the lawyers dumbass.
And who is opposing tort reform because it would mean less money for the parasites? It's the lawyers, dumbass. Hey, it has been only two days. You're skipping your meds, and you know that's dangerous.
Okay, you can have the title of the Best Slashdot Poster, Ever, for the next time you're in the shower. You can say to yourself, "ahh, I'm such a much better speller than that dude on Slashdot, oh yeahhhh"
You sure do show a lot of interest in my rear end and what I might do in the shower. I worry about you. Actually, what I like to do is sit at my desk (fully clothed - don't get excited), read comments like yours and think, "I am so glad I don't post off-the-wall, name-calling rants like that."
There is no way they could find that out unless the criminal had an IQ of 70 and then he's lucky to get out of the house with pants on.
Most criminals are not Lex Luthor. Why do you think there are so many dumb-criminal stories? They really are stupid for the most part. I had one thief (or thieves) fail to steal my Mustang because they jimmied the door and pulled the ignition lock cylinder but then couldn't start the engine. The thing was the key switch had broken and it was so expensive to replace that I had rerouted the wiring to two easily visible/traced switches for ignition and starter. They aren't real bright.
Thankfully, Neidorf won. Of course, he had a $100,000 bill for lawyer fees at the end of it. Justice is expensive.
Unfortunately, what you get for $100,000 is not really justice but jurisprudence and wealthy lawyers.
Uh, right. If the corps weren't worried about people with lawyers standing up to them, then why are they so hot and bothered for "tort reform"?
The only people really worried about tort reform are lawyers, and that would be because . . . ? I know it's hard, but try to think it through.
What do you mean, anchient? Go check the dates, its the 6th and the 3rd. And no.
"Anchient"? Even after I spelled it for you, you couldn't get it right. What a hoot. A three-day-old article on Slashdot is ancient. You're responding to a three-day-old response? What do you do, read and answer only when your medication wears off?
Uh huh. Maybe a good 2x4 would knock some sense into you? You're wrong, we're right, and we proved it to you. But you just wont give it up.
By all means, bring a 2x4 to a gunfight. That's what you've been doing so far. I'd be happy to cap you and do a lasting service for the gene pool if you want. You (or your "we") haven't proved anything except that you're unable to understand reality. I've heard there is some new stem cell therapy that could work wonders for your condition, but I'm not a doctor, so I can't help you. Sorry.
You probably want to add yourself to my freaks list now in order to show your displeasure. If you have problems, respond in three days (when the medication wears off), and I'll give you detailed instructions on how to do it.
Normally, I'd steer clear of a smoking response like that, but I have to agree with much it.
The password rules at work have become so restrictive that everyone now has their passwords written down in easily found places, and it has become a running joke.
The rules require upper- and lower-case alpha, mumerics, and punctuation or special characters. The password may not contain a dictionary word, so 5cow_iza-bote is not allowed because cow is a word. If it was allowed, you would not be allowed to use 5cow, bote, or iza in any subsequent password for 18 months.
I used to use misspelled words with numeric prepends for passwords, and as far as I know, they were never guessed in the decades I used them. Now it's just a matter of carrying around a list of passwords. Some security.
yea... but you can never reach that page....
Woa, what happens if you look up "Heisenberg principle"?
Really? I've been using Linux/Mozilla/Firefox for long enough that I'm not familiar with the whole spyware problem. I guess it's not a good idea after all.
They should buys some popups advertising for the popup-blocker
That's modded funny, but it makes some sense. Why not a popup saying, "If you were using Firefox, this ad wouldn't be in your face. Use this link to download now."
They might be non profit company making free software but they are threatening other companies' buisness model.
With Microsoft bundling/downloading IE for _free_, how does Firefox threaten the business model of other companies? I can think of only one company currently trying to sell a browser, and more power to 'em, but that's an uphill battle, and Firefox is not their biggest competitor.
But the name is out there, and it will spread. Slowly, but it will spread. (Until it reaches critical mass, after which it will really take off!)
You mean it will spread like Wildfire? Great, now I've got that stupid Michael Murphy song running in my head.
So from a story based on a press release, which are in effect an advertisement.
Obviously, the ads were not very widespread or well-targeted. So much for the highly educated hard work involved.
You still have not explained how you would have gone about getting your six dollars without enlisting the help of those "parasitic" lawyers.
I suggest you get a dictionary and look up "parasite". The lawyers were not a party to the original transactions but feed off the reparation. If your car is stolen and then recovered by the police, does the officer get half your car? Does he get a percentage of it? You will say that the officer is already being paid - so don't - if legal services were freely available as a tax-paid public service for all, that would be fine. I could use the term "leech" instead if that's better for you.
Well, at least the irony of that statement isn't lost one of us.
There wasn't any irony involved, so once again, the meaning was lost on you. To put it in simple terms, the name-calling was childish as was the mock response.
I never said break the law. What I said was that it is unethical for you not to work to the best of your abilities when someone placed his trust in you. There's a whole field of ethics about that. It's called "professional ethics.
You really don't have any idea about professional ethics. Professional ethics do not allow you to put your client/customer's interests above the good of society or the rules you agreed to. I suggest you go look at the rules of ethics for members of the ACM, IEEE, or Computer Society before you spout off about what professional ethics are.
Geragos didn't have anything to do with OJ.
Did you notice the period between them? Two different instances of slimy lawyer ethics and circumventing the law. You can't figure out why it would be unethical for Geragos to buy some prime real estate next to a courthouse and display an exhibit that was disallowed by the court? Then, when others turned it into a shrine to the victims, Geragos quickly removed it. No clue? None whatsoever?
They don't lie. They make an argument by selectively illustrating facts.
Which would be like selectively ignoring the rest of the facts? You are truly CEO material. Give up your lawyering ambitions.
It doesn't doesnt matter whether or not the lawyer's client is guilty or innocent. Everyone deserves a strong defense. It's not for the defendent's lawyer to decide whether or not he is guilty. That's the jury's job.
This may be the first thing you've said that I almost agree with. However, going back to that oath, a lawyer should not be defending (as in not guilty) a defendant who the lawyer believes or knows is guilty.
Perhaps your congressman would take them more seriously if you didn't use terms "congresscritters". Terms like that aren't witty. They're juvenile. Intellgent people don't use them. Neither should you.
It should be fairly obvious that I am polite when I write my senator, just like I am when replying to people who call me names. If the use of "congresscritters" is avoided by "Intellgent" people, then there are some mainstream columnists as well as few hundred-thousand Slashbots who are thereby rendered un-"intellgent". Jargon is. Deal.
I do not know of a single congressmen that practices law while serving in congress.
Obviously. Making law is the flip side of practicing law, and if you luck out, you get a black robe and get to interpret the law! Although I have to admit I have more respect for judges than lawyers or lawmakers.
Because there was no relevance. Instead of providing context, you just repeat them.
If you then provide the "context" in a response, perhaps you didn't think about it hard enough.
Yes I left an out. In light of this most grevious error I fall on my sword.
Can I hold it? Please?
I've have c
The greatest trick was giving the "common man" the idea that standing up for himself by suing (frequently your only option with little to no government regulation and where corporations have all the rights of individuals and none of the responsibilities) is a bad thing because it might put money in the hands of lawyers. And twits like you have bought it hook, line and sinker.
The greatest trick was making the clueless believe that they could stand up against corporations by hiring a lawyer. And twits like you have bought it hook, line and sinker (and wallet). Go sue Microsoft for providing defective software, and see how far you get. And what are you doing in this ancient, deadly boring argument anyway? Got two accounts? The childish name-calling seems pretty familiar.
Were those tears of pain, relief, joy or just plain old exhaustion?
From his previous posts, I'd guess it had a lot more to do with recreational drugs and old music than new hardware.
It might or might not be insightful, but it certainly wasn't funny.
It was funny. Trust me, I have a sense of humor. :)
Pray tell, how would you have gone about receiving your six dollars? And while you're at it, tell me how you found out that there was even a class action suit for you to join?
I see you've figured out the difference between prey and pray. I found out about the suit from a story on Slashdot and followed the link.
You mean like those lawyers who ran advertisements saying, "Did you buy a CD? You may be owed money! Call us today!"? You're a hypocrite.
What ads? Neener neener. I'm not, you are! Geez, grow up, guy.
You seem to have a lack of the basic understanding of how lawyers operate. Someone off the street comes to them and says, "I want to sue this person." The lawyer then sues that person, and is paid. The transaction is no different from your afore mentioned sanitation workers. ("Do you need trash picked up? Call us!")
Perhaps I do have a basic misunderstanding of how lawyers operate. I thought that they had to take a professional oath and that they were supposed to decline frivoluous claims and advise their clients not to do dishonest things. Sanitation workers aren't violating ethics by handling your trash, while many lawyers are.
If I found out my lawyer wasn't doing everything in his power to win, then I'd fire him, and so would you.
You seem to have no concern for ethics. Again, Geragos. O.J. Simpson. I believe that lawyers are not supposed to lie or knowingly help the guilty to circumvent justice. When a lawyer says, "Don't tell me anything except you're innocent," that a breach of ethics IMHO.
If you don't like how the law the law is being applied, write your congressman and have the law changed.
As I pointed out previously, my congresscritters are lawyers who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, and they don't really agree with my views, but you were completely unable to see the relevance.
Twice now you've tried to use non sequiturs anecdotes as evidence to buttress your argument. Contrary to helping your argument, it reveals your lack of skills in forming a coherent argument. Take a rhetoric class. You need it.
Your inability to make cognitive connections (or HTML tags) without having your nose rubbed in it does not constitute a lack on my part. You've pretty much dumped all your original points as they've been dismantled and professed confusion over the rest, which makes this a really one-sided and soon to be discontinued conversation.
Your brother could have filed a document indicating that he was serving as his own legal counsel. The fact that he didn't realize that he could have done that shows that he was unqualified to act in legal proceedings and was in desperate need of trained legal counsel. Hiring a lawyer was the prudent choice.
Once again, you choose to ignore the point: One should not have be a lawyer in order to obtain one's employment records. It's a boondoggle to ensure more business for lawyers, with the rules written by lawyers.
I'm saying the lawyers deserve to [be] financially compensated for services rendered.
I don't see the word "fairly" in there anywhere, but then I didn't expect to.
f you mean "when they will stop moaning and disturbing the living ones" - well, that's a question for an Exorcist, not a geek.
What religion has an exorcism that works on lawyers? I want to join, sit in the front pew, and testify!
You're complaining that someone got paid for bringing you check that all you did to receive was file up behind the sign that read "free money". Now, who's the parasite?
This should be easy, even for you. The parasites are the ones who made all the money while not being involved in the original monetary transactions: the lawyers.
You mean those "ambulance chasers" that tilt the economic incentives towards safety instead of risk? Those lawyers? How dare they!
I mean like those lawyers who put late night commercials on TV asking if you have pain from your car accident and feel you weren't given the TLC you deserve, and how you really deserve some money for your supposed pain.
How do lawyers pervert the law into their favor? Now they may pervert the law in their client's favor, but I've never heard of lawyers perverting the law for lawyers. There's a big difference.
So perverting the law to help a client is okay? Gee, weren't you just saying lawers enforce the law? They pervert the law in order to make a reputation and more money. Does the name Geragos and his purchase of property near a courthouse mean anything to you?
The same civil lawyer that was facing off against you yesterday, can be yours today if you pay his fee. In fact, that happens all the time.
Which proves what? Apparently, at least half of all lawyers are willing to take money for arguing the wrong position and lose. Great ethics.
Lawyers don't bleed both sides. They are hired by both sides. If you don't want to pay one, don't hire one!
BS. The system is rigged to force you to hire one. My brother was set up for termination (and he was backed up by other employees) and could not get documents from his (previous) employer because they would only release them to legal counsel. It took a retainer to get the documents.
Since the awarde money wasn't yours to begin with, it's not like the lawyers took any money from you. Of course you agreed to the terms when you hired the lawyer, but I'm sure that's just a technicality.
So you're saying all settlement money really belongs to the lawyers even though it is in compensation for a wrong done to someone else. The injured party should just be grateful for some scraps from the lawyer's table. How's your law degree coming along? You can try to as hard as you want to make a silk purse from a sow's ear, but it still won't happen.
Well in this case, the members of the class action suit had the better lawyers. They won a settlement that resulted in a cash pay out.
The settlement was a pittance for the victims. Obviously, the RIAA had better lawyers, or the amount would have been greater. The lawyers on both sides made the real money.
Do you realize how many highly educated and highly skilled people were involved in bringing the suit and negotiating the settlement? Do you realize how much each one of those individuals is worth in the market?
Do you realize how incredibly valuable ambulance chasers are to society?
I fail to see what tort has to do with undue influence over politicians.
When you can buy the right to issue subpoenas and bypass due process, that's a problem. The majority of US senators are lawyers.
When did I say that? Of course they're capitalists. The vast majority society is capitalists.
The vast majority of society are workers who don't hold allegiance to any particular economic model. You said lawyers enforce the law. They don't. Law enforcement officers enforce the law. Lawyers do their best to twist the law to their own advantage. They often help the guilty circumvent the law.
Lawyers are skilled professionals. Yes, they get paid very well, and by and large they deserve it. Anyone does who:
1. invests large amounds of time, effort, and money in an education
2. perfoms complex tasks that most of society can not
3. actually does their job well
Fine, you just described programmers, accountants, nurses, teachers, clergy, and a number of other occupations where the practitioner won't make millions of dollars for a year's work.
I never said lawyers act out of the goodness of their heart. What I said was they perform a needed function of society . . .
So do sanitation engineers, and IMHO, they're far more valuable to society than a bunch of parasites who make a living from fomenting confrontations and bleeding both sides while trying to pervert the law in their favor.
No. A lot of people would be much worse off, and a few would be much better off. The reason corporations hate lawyers and class action lawsuites is because it enables the plebs to band togother and actually enforce the law.
And who has all the best lawyers? Any class action suit (like the one against the RIAA) results in a check for six dollars (I got one) for the injured party and millions for the lawyers.
Produce nothing? They change someones behavior, and through extension society as a whole. Without lawyers, we'd be anarchy. Like it or not lawyers enforce the laws.
Sure they do. Despite all the civil and criminal prosecutions of the RIAA and its members, it's the RIAA that is making (and enforcing) the laws by buying legislation.
You may think "yeah kill all the lawyers", but its a very sophmoric attitude.
Despite the TV shows you watch, lawyers are not out save the world or adopt all the orphans they run across while doing community service for their coke problems; they're out to make money. The definition of mixed feelings is watching a bus full of lawyers go over a cliff -- with two empty seats.
Carrying it a step further, I'm leaning towards the idea that, once you've filed a lawsuit, an out-of-court settlement should no longer be possible. Why should it? If two companies can't agree before going to court, why should the courts be used to pressure one side or the other to give in?
The court often directs the opposing parties to reach a settlement. If one party doesn't try or negotiate in good faith, then they are in trouble.
Which war was that?
For knuckle-dragging trolls, that would be Vietnam, sometimes called a police action, but then so was Korea. There was a Falklands War in the 80's? Do tell. You mean that territorial scuffle where the Brits lost a couple of boats to South American colonists with French weapons? History repeats itself on a much smaller scale - hardly a war.
Further proof that the 60's generation was a bunch of hypocritical creeps. As Phil Ochs said in the 60s, of the "liberal": "10 degrees to the left of center most times, 10 degrees to the right of center when it affects them personally."
How is that "proof" of anything? Many members of the 60's generation (male and female) volunteered for service (or served otherwise) in a war that became unpopular and were thanked with disdain and epithets when they returned home. Then they got jobs and paid taxes while being denied service-releated benefits. Now, it's accusations of hypocrisy. You know, I'm having flashbacks from all the LSD you've been told I took back then, and I'm feeling like getting medieval on your @$$. Where's your tent, camper? You're looking a lot like a clueless officer right now. [Fade in with Hendrix tune]
The people willing to enter long pages of code were not average. They were the hobbyists, enthusiasts and professionals. Average people were not smarter or more computer literate than they are today.
The people who owned computers then were absolutely more computer literate because there was no MS telling them they didn't need to be and because computer usage required a modicum of understanding. The average users were "hobbyists, enthusiasts and professionals" with all that hobbyist implies. Transcription requires only typing skills, not a CS degree.