1) How do you get your car out when its part of the middle of a stack?
2) Would you want everyone else's tire tracks on your car's body?
People don't care when its something like shopping carts were it's the store's property and it doesn't matter when it gets dinged or bent slightly when stored as part of a group. But do you really think people are going to be all okay with their own car being stacked/folded into a set with a bunch of strangers' cars?
To understand why they might logically sign the documents, you must first understand that liability for death or injury is not the only benefit that enlisted and their families receive for service done by the enlisted.
Don't you think the legality of a form being signed under extreme mental stress would be questionable?
You might be willing to screw over your wife and children because the military was screwing you over, but I would say that most people have more concern for their families.
You're not making any sense here, how does releasing the military from financial responsibility help your family?
Unless the lawsuit fails, AND you get dishonorably discharged, so your family looses any non-lawsuit related payments the military might make. I highly doubt that you being dead would prevent the military from giving you a dishonorable discharge if your last act before death was to disobey a direct order.
Sorry to say this, but if the U.S. military is that so concerned with whether they have to pay financially for my death that they're too chicken shit to take responsiblity for it, why would I give a flying fuck of I'm dishonorably discharged? I would have very little respect for the Army at that point, so Oh Noes! I've been dishonorably discharged! Meanwhile, in the land where I care... v__v
Situation #2 - I refuse to sign the form. I die in the crash. The last fifteen minutes of my life were spent with the commander yelling at me.
I think even he would see the comedy of the situation if he was going down, too. And now your wife and kid have some money to cushion the financial loss, maybe his college fund is all set up now? That sounds like a nice present to leave him since you can't be there.
Trainees are potentially heading into very dangerous, very consequential situations. Thousands of years of experience show that stressful training helps them survive these situations and achieve vital objectives. This involves an irreducible level of danger in training exercises.
I don't disagree that a training exercise under the a burden of stress can be a valuable experience, Heck that's what most drills are for (except there's a lack of stress since everyone knows its a drill), the problem is this was all done as part of an experiment to see if the stress had any impact on the prescribed activity (filling out forms) when that activity is rather irrational in the larger picture. Insurance forms made little sense in the context it was in (except to a beancouter).
If I wanted to test a platoon's ability to handle tedious tasks while under stress I would have them do something more practical to the situations they would be in on the battlefield. How about disassembly/reassembly of rifles or repair of larger weapons while under fire? That would require complex thinking and hand/eye coordination for something other than writing legibly. How about planning tactical maneuvers within a time limit?
Or for our ocean landing: Survival in the first hour when stranded behind enemy lines, with limited equipment and possibly injured?
You can point out all the logical arguments why they should have done this and that, but if they were too shaken up to remember their birthdate and SSN, what the fuck makes you think they were going to analyze the situation logically??
Even if they aren't thinking logically, they are going to be thinking "How can I protect myself in this situation?" Survival is going to be at the top of their agenda, and filling out forms would not contribute to that at all. That's why this experiment makes no sense. If someone came at me with an insurance form during a controlled dive into a lake, I'd think they were nuts.
It's a pretty scary situation so the soldiers were under plenty stress, but it's not as if they were definitely doomed and so it would still make sense to carry out orders.
I'm still waiting to hear why the army should be let off the hook for accidents that occur on their own training grounds, with their equipment/vehicles.
There was never any intention to crash the aircraft, it was a experiment to see how the stress of impending death affected the soldiers' ability to fill out a form...
Yes, that's my point. They didn't know it was an experiment. They were under the impression they really were in danger.
You're not seeing the forest for the trees, here. Imagine you're one of the soldiers and you're in a plane and you're going to die. Suddenly the sergeant comes over and hands you a long form and a Bic. He says you need to fill out these forms so the Army will not be financially responsible for injuries or death you may suffer. Why would you fill it out?
I can't think of any reason the Army should not be responsible for what happened. This is a training exercise under the control of the U.S. government, not real combat.
This is the sort of thing you'd think they'd have thought of before you got on a plane, hence I would assume this form would have been summarized as a clause on the enlistment papers (so why do I need to fill it out again?).
You're going to die, why should you care if the Army gets sued?
If you don't fill out the form, what are they going to do? No time for a court marshal for insubordination, we're all gonna die! Oh, no we haven't got the forms signed! We'd better stop this plane from crashing or it'll cost us a fortune!
You see what I'm getting at here. The idea these soldiers would take part in the activity under these circumstances is silly. Who wants to spend their last moments alive trying to remember their social security number or if they have a family history of any of the following ailments (check all that apply).
Another 1960s experiment, in which ten soldiers on a training flight were told by the pilot that the aircraft was disabled, and about to ditch in the ocean. They were then required to fill in insurance forms before the crash -- ostensibly so the Army was not financially liable for any deaths or injuries.
1) I would assume I had already signed such a waiver when I first enlisted.
2) What was the Army going to do if they didn't? Suddenly save the plane to avoid any lawsuits?
Please read your term of use agreement first. If you get AT&T (formerly Bellsouth,net), the the TOS says you can't share an 'open wifi' connection.
So we add WPA to the WiFi and give all our neighbors the key. It's not an "Open" connection anymore, it's a secured one. The only way to close that loophole is to try and dictate the legal/genetic relationship between people using it (i.e. "Only immediate family members or roommates as listed on the residence's lease are allowed to use this connection") and then you have issues of co-workers and fellow students working together, etc not being able to use the connection without violating the TOS.
Heck, I got the warm fuzzy long ago when Claritin-D, technically an OTC drug would only be sold from behind TC, and then only if you present picture identification, and even then you could only purchase enough to take one a day for ten days!
They must have an interesting time selling the 15 caplet pack then, eh?
I've never had any trouble buying and taking it for more than ten days, heck I've been taking it almost every day for the past month thanks to my allergies.
'They own politicians - Sure, it's just phones. In a world where worse things happen all the time amid the muck and despair of human existence, having to pay for premium text is hardly worth worrying about, is it? You can (and should) opt out, and not sign on the dotted line to begin with.
There's no reason to forgo cell phones entirely to make a statement about how they run their business, all you really have to do is be a smarter (and more moderate) consumer.
First thing to do is rid yourself of the keeping-up-with-the-Joneses mentality when it comes to cell phones. If the phone you have is working fine, and there is no major benefit to you to get that new model, don't. What allows the subsidized business model to succeed is the throw-away society pushed by advertisers where people feel the need to get a new phone (and extend a contract) for no reason.
I signed up with my carrier (T-Mobile) in 2000. I took the free phone. It was a one year contract, and I took the lowest rate plan at the time ($20/mo) since I was unsure of what my usage would be. My contract ended, and after that I've been month to month with them - not prepaid, just not on contract. I ended up upgrading to a special rate plan for $30/mo later on due to my usage, this did not involve a contract extension/"service fee"/or anything else. And I could downgrade if I wanted to as well with no penalty. Most carriers will allow this sort of change in plan as far as I've seen.
Anyway, I replaced my phone when the backplate tabs on my original one (a Nokia 5190) started to fail (the phone would lose power every once in awhile due to the battery losing contact with the terminals from the loose tabs). I did not get a new phone from T-Mobile. I bought a Nokia 6610 used on eBay. I bought a locked one because I had no immediate wish to leave T-Mobile, and the fact it was locked made it worth less on the market, so I saved money.
I slipped in my SIM and used this phone with no problems until this year, when I actually lost the phone. I went on eBay again and bought a new, factory unlocked (but Cingular branded), Nokia 6030. There were a ton of auctions for these phones, by the same two or three sellers, so competition was nil, and I got it for the minimum bid. Then I went to a T-Mobile store and got a new SIM. A new SIM is generally $25, I got mine for free after the rep saw how long I'd had my account (in other words, loyalty and not asking for freebies and upgrades all the time DOES pay off in small ways).
Do you ever notice how the $40/mo cell phone plans are the ones the companies push most to consumers, and they always make the $20/mo plan much lower featured and disproportionately minuted in comparison? My personal theory is this plan is the lowest priced plan over some magic threshold where the cell phone companies are making a comfortable profit off you while subsidizing a phone. That's why they always want you to take that plan or higher.
I don't use text messaging really, even though it is active on my phone, because it's cheaper to just call the person, even if you're over minutes. Think how much conversation you can fit into one minute of overage time (at 35-40 a minute) verses text messaging at 15 a send and maybe another 10-15 for a receive. This denies the carrier text billing revenue from me, I have co-workers who have it disabled on their phones to avoid incoming charges, too.
Cell phone carriers have the tendency to remove features from plans more than add them, so if a new plan comes around, make sure you look carefully at your usage verses what it offers. You may find you're getting a better deal with what you have, and carriers rarely try and force people off old plans due to legal worries in sue-happy America. I still have my $30/mo plan because it isn't a normal plan, I can't get it back once I drop it. It provides me with enough minutes for my needs without being excessive, I get my first incoming minute of calls free and 50 incoming te
3: Landlords/property managers will come up with (or be told by the existing contracted company) bull such as "You're not allowed to do that because they have to run more wires through the wall" or "You can't do that because you'd have to mount an ugly satellite dish on the exterior of the building" (even if not true).
Yup, it's not true. The junction box on the outside of the building is the line of demarcation for the cable company's drop, and their property. The wires they run through the walls are not their property once they're intsalled, they belong to the home/building owner. I suppose they could take the box itself, but damaging the wires running through the building would give the property owners the right to sue for, well, destruction of property I'm sure.
On the Mac, yeah. I used to use Photoshop 3 on two monitors like that. I think it's more a Windows not supporting multiple monitors right problem than it is a Photoshop issue.
As long as the power company can recoup most/all of the added expense from the customer, they won't have any impetus to switch anything at all.
As long as they don't wish to ever expand or build new power plants, no. But when they're trying to get approval to build new plants (especially that all important property tax break) they'll have a lot harder time getting residents to go along with them if they're planning to build coal plants that are going to generate big pollution bills the power company will be passing on to consumers.
If there's one thing preventing the adoption of green/renewable energy, it's that it's still cheaper to do things the old way. The government is offering tax breaks for people buying hybrid cars, a better idea is adding a pollution tax to the sticker price of regular cars. When the price of a hybrid sedan begins to match that of a standard sedan more (the initial price, not the "after the 15 year life total cost of ownership"), then you'll see more people pick them.
if it is the latter....then I suppose SSL would be the solution.
Unfortunately some providers are degrading encrypted traffic as well to thwart file sharing, this also has the side effect of degrading performance on some VoIP phone services.
Slashdot Mirror
You have a lower UID than me, let you still seem to be new here.
1) How do you get your car out when its part of the middle of a stack?
2) Would you want everyone else's tire tracks on your car's body?
People don't care when its something like shopping carts were it's the store's property and it doesn't matter when it gets dinged or bent slightly when stored as part of a group. But do you really think people are going to be all okay with their own car being stacked/folded into a set with a bunch of strangers' cars?
He needs a product to be defending the trademark of. Would a blog suffice?
Don't you think the legality of a form being signed under extreme mental stress would be questionable?
You're not making any sense here, how does releasing the military from financial responsibility help your family?
Sorry to say this, but if the U.S. military is that so concerned with whether they have to pay financially for my death that they're too chicken shit to take responsiblity for it, why would I give a flying fuck of I'm dishonorably discharged? I would have very little respect for the Army at that point, so Oh Noes! I've been dishonorably discharged! Meanwhile, in the land where I care... v__v
I think even he would see the comedy of the situation if he was going down, too. And now your wife and kid have some money to cushion the financial loss, maybe his college fund is all set up now? That sounds like a nice present to leave him since you can't be there.
I don't disagree that a training exercise under the a burden of stress can be a valuable experience, Heck that's what most drills are for (except there's a lack of stress since everyone knows its a drill), the problem is this was all done as part of an experiment to see if the stress had any impact on the prescribed activity (filling out forms) when that activity is rather irrational in the larger picture. Insurance forms made little sense in the context it was in (except to a beancouter).
If I wanted to test a platoon's ability to handle tedious tasks while under stress I would have them do something more practical to the situations they would be in on the battlefield. How about disassembly/reassembly of rifles or repair of larger weapons while under fire? That would require complex thinking and hand/eye coordination for something other than writing legibly. How about planning tactical maneuvers within a time limit?
Or for our ocean landing: Survival in the first hour when stranded behind enemy lines, with limited equipment and possibly injured?
Even if they aren't thinking logically, they are going to be thinking "How can I protect myself in this situation?" Survival is going to be at the top of their agenda, and filling out forms would not contribute to that at all. That's why this experiment makes no sense. If someone came at me with an insurance form during a controlled dive into a lake, I'd think they were nuts.
I'm still waiting to hear why the army should be let off the hook for accidents that occur on their own training grounds, with their equipment/vehicles.
Yes, that's my point. They didn't know it was an experiment. They were under the impression they really were in danger.
You're not seeing the forest for the trees, here. Imagine you're one of the soldiers and you're in a plane and you're going to die. Suddenly the sergeant comes over and hands you a long form and a Bic. He says you need to fill out these forms so the Army will not be financially responsible for injuries or death you may suffer. Why would you fill it out?
You see what I'm getting at here. The idea these soldiers would take part in the activity under these circumstances is silly. Who wants to spend their last moments alive trying to remember their social security number or if they have a family history of any of the following ailments (check all that apply).
1) I would assume I had already signed such a waiver when I first enlisted.
2) What was the Army going to do if they didn't? Suddenly save the plane to avoid any lawsuits?
It's not like Congress would be doing anything else otherwise.
So we add WPA to the WiFi and give all our neighbors the key. It's not an "Open" connection anymore, it's a secured one. The only way to close that loophole is to try and dictate the legal/genetic relationship between people using it (i.e. "Only immediate family members or roommates as listed on the residence's lease are allowed to use this connection") and then you have issues of co-workers and fellow students working together, etc not being able to use the connection without violating the TOS.
I, for one, welcome our self-replicating overlords!
That's a pretty big IF there...
They must have an interesting time selling the 15 caplet pack then, eh?
I've never had any trouble buying and taking it for more than ten days, heck I've been taking it almost every day for the past month thanks to my allergies.
That was great.
There's no reason to forgo cell phones entirely to make a statement about how they run their business, all you really have to do is be a smarter (and more moderate) consumer.
First thing to do is rid yourself of the keeping-up-with-the-Joneses mentality when it comes to cell phones. If the phone you have is working fine, and there is no major benefit to you to get that new model, don't. What allows the subsidized business model to succeed is the throw-away society pushed by advertisers where people feel the need to get a new phone (and extend a contract) for no reason.
I signed up with my carrier (T-Mobile) in 2000. I took the free phone. It was a one year contract, and I took the lowest rate plan at the time ($20/mo) since I was unsure of what my usage would be. My contract ended, and after that I've been month to month with them - not prepaid, just not on contract. I ended up upgrading to a special rate plan for $30/mo later on due to my usage, this did not involve a contract extension/"service fee"/or anything else. And I could downgrade if I wanted to as well with no penalty. Most carriers will allow this sort of change in plan as far as I've seen.
Anyway, I replaced my phone when the backplate tabs on my original one (a Nokia 5190) started to fail (the phone would lose power every once in awhile due to the battery losing contact with the terminals from the loose tabs). I did not get a new phone from T-Mobile. I bought a Nokia 6610 used on eBay. I bought a locked one because I had no immediate wish to leave T-Mobile, and the fact it was locked made it worth less on the market, so I saved money.
I slipped in my SIM and used this phone with no problems until this year, when I actually lost the phone. I went on eBay again and bought a new, factory unlocked (but Cingular branded), Nokia 6030. There were a ton of auctions for these phones, by the same two or three sellers, so competition was nil, and I got it for the minimum bid. Then I went to a T-Mobile store and got a new SIM. A new SIM is generally $25, I got mine for free after the rep saw how long I'd had my account (in other words, loyalty and not asking for freebies and upgrades all the time DOES pay off in small ways).
Do you ever notice how the $40/mo cell phone plans are the ones the companies push most to consumers, and they always make the $20/mo plan much lower featured and disproportionately minuted in comparison? My personal theory is this plan is the lowest priced plan over some magic threshold where the cell phone companies are making a comfortable profit off you while subsidizing a phone. That's why they always want you to take that plan or higher.
I don't use text messaging really, even though it is active on my phone, because it's cheaper to just call the person, even if you're over minutes. Think how much conversation you can fit into one minute of overage time (at 35-40 a minute) verses text messaging at 15 a send and maybe another 10-15 for a receive. This denies the carrier text billing revenue from me, I have co-workers who have it disabled on their phones to avoid incoming charges, too.
Cell phone carriers have the tendency to remove features from plans more than add them, so if a new plan comes around, make sure you look carefully at your usage verses what it offers. You may find you're getting a better deal with what you have, and carriers rarely try and force people off old plans due to legal worries in sue-happy America. I still have my $30/mo plan because it isn't a normal plan, I can't get it back once I drop it. It provides me with enough minutes for my needs without being excessive, I get my first incoming minute of calls free and 50 incoming te
Yup, it's not true. The junction box on the outside of the building is the line of demarcation for the cable company's drop, and their property. The wires they run through the walls are not their property once they're intsalled, they belong to the home/building owner. I suppose they could take the box itself, but damaging the wires running through the building would give the property owners the right to sue for, well, destruction of property I'm sure.
Are they going to change their name to "Erotic Arts"?
Felix Felicis
On the Mac, yeah. I used to use Photoshop 3 on two monitors like that. I think it's more a Windows not supporting multiple monitors right problem than it is a Photoshop issue.
As long as they don't wish to ever expand or build new power plants, no. But when they're trying to get approval to build new plants (especially that all important property tax break) they'll have a lot harder time getting residents to go along with them if they're planning to build coal plants that are going to generate big pollution bills the power company will be passing on to consumers.
If there's one thing preventing the adoption of green/renewable energy, it's that it's still cheaper to do things the old way. The government is offering tax breaks for people buying hybrid cars, a better idea is adding a pollution tax to the sticker price of regular cars. When the price of a hybrid sedan begins to match that of a standard sedan more (the initial price, not the "after the 15 year life total cost of ownership"), then you'll see more people pick them.
Unfortunately some providers are degrading encrypted traffic as well to thwart file sharing, this also has the side effect of degrading performance on some VoIP phone services.