"One [government] to rule them all and in the darkness, bind them."
I'm not too keen on turning something that was (for all intents and purposes) invented, nurtured, and developed here, on American soil, over to european interests. What, now that the internet has political value the euro's want it? As far as I'm concerned, if they want it, they can reimburse us for the last 30 years of upkeep. This really strikes me as a thinly veiled grab for power. I really don't understand the logic that goes into making a suggestion like this. Just becuase everyone needs something doesn't make it communal property.
You have to admit, those wacky euros have a great sense of humor asking something ridiculous like this!
I suppose that, ultimately, my goal isn't to stop calls from a specific telemarketer but rather to drive telemarketers from the industry. I don't actually hate you. I just want to make life hard enough for you that you pursue another career.
Vindictive? Not so much. I don't actually hate these people, though I'd like them to think I do. It raises their stress level, as inhumane as that is. You see...
It's in my best interest to take advantage of the human element by initiating some amateurish psy-ops and raising the level of aggravation a telemarketer must endure above the level of compensation they receive. At that point, human nature takes its course: they look for another job and the marketing firm must hire and train another person.
No, it's not nice. But I lack sufficient empathy to identify with my victim and, subsequently, consider my actions "wrong". A form of psychopathy? Perhaps.
"And Qwest is, of course, allowed to call its own customers unless they've asked them specifically to be taken off the list (because they have an Existing Business Relationship)."...AND...
"All you have to do is say 'put me on your do-not-call list'. That's it. THEY'LL NEVER BOTHER YOU AGAIN."
Great, so if I tell Quest to take me off their call list, they'll do it? Oh FUCK no. Why? Simply because they don't have to.
More and more service providers (of all sorts) are creating a "retentions" department that's authorized to do all sorts of crazy things to keep you there.
(bitchfest) Hell, I cancelled my Sprint service because they changed their equipment replacement plan on me and made it more expensive for me to get a new phone than to switch service. When I called to actually cancel, they sent me to "retentions" where the guy offered me a new phone to keep me with them. This, of course, immediately after being told by customer service that I was screwed in the "using my equipment replacement plan to get new equipment" department. Customer Service != Retentions Department. Why the hell was I paying for an equipment replacement plan when I could just get a new phone for free by threatening to cancel?!?! I decided that I'd had enough of Sprint's crappy customer no-service and jumped ship. They will not profit from me any longer. SCREW THEM ALL TO DEATH! (/bitchfest)
*ahem* I feel better now. Thanks, guys.
So I'm wondering. If you were a quest customer and called to cancel service, would they send you to retentions? If you spoke to retentions and told them to take you off their marketing list or you're cancelling service, they would make it so, wouldn't they? Because retentions has all sorts of wacky super powers.
I'd be curious to see.
Oh, and as far as being an ass to marketing guys, I have no problem with it. I'm an ass to guys like you on purpose. I'm not actually mad, but I strive to make you think i'm mad. Often, I'm on the verge of bursting into laughter at your stammering and stuttering when I lay into you. If it didn't bother you, you wouldn't have put up your post. Since it does bother you, I win and you lose. It's as simple as that. I'll keep "being an ass" to guys like you as long as it takes. My stress level isn't affected but yours is. Hell, you guys are theraputic for me. If I can release some work-generated stress into some recepticle on the other end of my phone, I come out ahead.
Now that I know misapplication of the DNCL regulations irritates guys like you more than just being an ass, I think I'll try that. Thanks for the advice.
"I find your lack of foresight disturbing." -- Darth Mythandros
This really isn't news. Company A didn't forsee company B inventing something that will put company A out of business. Boo Hoo, too bad, so sad. Life goes on. Sure, this is slightly different in that we're talking about copyright issues but the fact of the matter is that technology progresses. Period. This topic isn't open for debate. You cannot contain this phenominon. Just like me, it's a force of nature. P2P and camera phones are here to stay so get used to it.
As I understand it, the billboard charts accurately reflect only what songs are played the most on the radio.
Consider the implications of that for a second. The charts may or may not reflect what any specific region actually wants to listen to. It seems like there should necessarily be a causality in all cases but apparently that's not always true.
It seems logical that the radio conglomerates would want to play the most popular songs. After all, the music is being played by companies that want only to maximize profits for stockholders. The music only matters as much as it sells commercial airtime and if you can't afford to miss the song coming on after the next commercial break, you can't afford to tune out during the commercial for fear of missing that song.
Anyways, my point: Some funky statistical skewing goes on behind the scenes when the record labels purchase commercial time to play a song that's just been released by one of their "hot new artists" (tm). This results in an artifically high numbers of plays that forces the song up the charts into a position it doesn't actually deserve. The radio execs, seeing a song so high on the chart, start scheduling it for more frequent circulation. If enough record companies do this...see the feedback loop?
Right. And everything that could have caused the permian extinction was either due to completely foreign causes, i.e. of extra-terrestrial origin, or an environmental anomaly. We have to limit this discussion to events occuring within a couple standard deviations away from the expected. The alternative is changing building codes to be able to withstand small meteor impacts because they could happen. See what I mean?
We don't know if we can destroy the earth. That's not to green-light attempts to do so, but just consider that we really don't know what our long term effect will be, if any.
"The work was funded in part by the Department of Homeland Security, Office of Domestic Preparedness through Dartmouth's Institute for Security Technology Studies (ISTS)."
An extrapolation as to why these guys need nanobots is left as an exercise for the reader.
The next 50 years of computing will see the introduction of AI to PC's in the form of an expert system designed to protect against intruders and malicious programs.
"The bomb creates tremendous heat and on large populated areas is so terrifying (terroristic weapon) that it scares your enemy into surrender. Which is exactly why we used them against the Japanese."
How exactly does one end a war without convincing one's adversary that defeat is imminent? When is the threat of defeat in war not terrifying?
You must assume that anyone who doesn't share the same views as you on political satire is simply stupid, and therefore cannot make a joke. How narrow-minded...
(By the way, I want you to know that it really hurt me to add that extraneous comma.)
Do you propose that they move to mountainous areas (prone to landslides in torrential rains) or flatlands (prone to cat 5 tornados that appear with little to no notice)?
Anywhere you go, you're going to find natural disasters.
They're cheating using a bot. Using a bot is a violation of TOS. A violation of TOS is between the holder of the contract and the signer of the contract only. The fact that he was using a bot only matters to the guy he mugged in that it was unbeatable. But would this same guy be equally as pissed if a character or mob that was vastly superior to him in power, controlled by a player instead of AI, took his sword? A character that is vastly superior in power is equally as unbeatable even in the hands of a person. Does that mean that anyone who can take his sword easily, human or AI, is in danger of having the cops called on his ass?
Oh, and let's say that it was a person controlling the character instead of a bot. Do you reall think he wouldn't have called the cops anyways?
Sure, I'd be pissed if someone took my $10,000 sword. I shouldn't have legal grounds to get that person arrested though.
No one can make a game that's impossible to cheat. Cheating is irrelevant to the legal culpability of the arrested party. He wasn't arrested for cheating, he was arrested for theft. Theft is theft. I think that it's incredibly retarted that he get arrested for theft of a virtual item. That's really what I'm getting at.
First of all, using a bot is breach of contract between the guy who got arrested and the game company. The contract said that no bots were to be used in the game. The guy broke his end of the deal and that's between him and the game company only. The reason that the bot is importants is because......bots make a character unbeatable. This guy was attacked by something unbeatable. So how is this any different from a 55th level wizard knocking down a 1st level ranger and taking his lunchmoney? isn't the 55th level wizard unbeatable to a 1st level ranger? It doesn't matter how the arrested party was unbeatable. The fact of the matter is that he was unbeatable.
To address your suggested modified analogy...I'm wearing the crown jewels to a demolition derby. Regardless of whether or not someone broke the rules, it's a demolition derby. You don't bring something to a demolition derby that you know you don't want destroyed. If I took the case to a court, the judge would laugh at me as he threw out the case (rightly so).
Likewise, the programmers built the ability to mug into the game. There are a finite number of actions you can take and mugging is one of them. The programmers would not have built mugging into the game if they did not fully expect it to be used. The purchasers of this game should realize that mugging is expected to occur. Nothing special has been built into the game to prevent you from losing virtual items. As a result, if you purchase a virtual item, you do so knowing that it may be taken from you at any time. Keep in mind that assault and battery perpetrated by one virtual persona against another virtual persona is not illegal in meatspace.
And to head off the argument...no, you cannot use some strange realspace argument involving the implicit consent to allow the theft of property carried if you walk through a bad part of town. The only reason this guy was arrested was for theft, not assault and battery. Assault, battery, and theft are not legal in meatspace. Assault and battery are perfectly legal for meatspace players to perpetrate against another meatspace player by way of virtual personas in this game. The only issue in question is whether or not I can use a virtual persona to steal virtual items from another virtual persona.
Since you believe that this should be a civil case, let me ask you this: if the item sold and then stolen had been discovered to be duped by way of a bug and the server ops removed the offending item, would the server ops be liable for the cost of the item?
I have to disagree with you. If I could claim legal posession of the crown jewels and wore them as a participant in a demolition derby, it would be my own fault if they were destroyed. Likewise, this guy bought a virtual item where virtual curb stomping followed by virtual theft of his virtual lunch money were accepted elements of gameplay.
There's another way to approach this too.
If you buy a virtual sword with meatspace cash, you get protection from it's theft. Meanwhile, the exact same virtual sword that I quested for (instead of buying) is up for grabs because I didn't buy it with meatspace cash?
So now, companies have to add code to flag characters that purchased items so that the purchased items can't be stolen on a successful PK?
Maybe we're getting into the realm of personal opinion but...
Let's consider some other game where character death results in XP loss. If I purchase a 50th level character and I get PK'd back a few levels. Are the parties who perpetrated the PK's liable for destruction of property? I did lose monetary value, after all. What about if I level my own character up to 50th with the intention of selling it and then get pk'd back a few levels? I lost value again. What if a MOB kills me and I lose levels that I purchased -- or better yet, the MOB kills me and takes items that I purchased? Is the company that produced the game now liable for theft?
What if I level it up to 50th myself without intending to sell it? Does that make me free range meat, ripe for the picking? Should merchants and customers really be afforded legal protection in meatspace from virtual crimes while the "common citizen" is neglected? Doesn't that beg the issue of "virtual equal rights"? Why should my neighbor be afforded meatspace enforced leagal protection from virtual theft for the +1e55 sword of beat-you-down that he purchased for $10,000 of real money when the same sword that I quested to obtain is "up for grabs" to anyone who can take it from me because I didn't pay money for it? Isn't this a kind of virtual aristocracy where only the people who can afford to spend cash on virtual items get real meatspace rights?
Do you see the pandora's box you're opening? Can you comprehend the far reaching implications of affording this fool legal rights on his virtual phallus^h^h^h^h^h^h^hsword?
I don't think that each and every tiny detail needs to be worked out. I do think that if you're going to call something broken and suggest we toss it out, that you should have some idea of how it's replacement is going to work. As it stands, you've offered no ideas on how to make your idea work and then have the audacity to tell me that I have a bad attitude when I start asking you to make your idea anything more than amorphous. Honestly, I'm kinda stunned.
If you think that comprehensive insurance is punishment before the fact, you're not looking at it from the company's point of view. You know that there's going to be a big payout (worker's comp). You can either amortize the payments (insurance) or be liable for one lump sum that's going to wipe out your surplus and possibly put you in the red -- if you're really lucky, it'll be the end of your company.
Look at the parent post. Here's what he said, paraphrased:
If you choose to work in a dangerous job and get hurt, you had it coming to you. You knew what the risks were and you took the job anyways. Why should you get money for getting hurt while doing a dangerous job? You're not entitled to it.
It sounds like he made an absolute statement, so......let's say that I'm making prefab steel reinforced concrete with inches-across cables that are stretched out under thousands of lbs of force and one of the machines fails. The machine fails becuase my employer didn't perform routine maintenance. The routine maintenance wasn't performed because he wanted to save up some money so he could afford a blue lamborghini to go along with his red and white ones. As a result, one guy get's his head taken off and I lose my legs at the waist. And what you're saying is that my employeer should not be held responsible?
That's what the parent post to my original post sounds like it's saying. This is what I'm warning against.
I whole heartedly agree that if you're flat-out running across a parking lot in the middle of winter, blindfolded, where you know for certain that there are hyuuuuuuge patches of smooth-as-glass ice, you deserve to not only break your leg but have someone come over and kick you in the cracked part. Maybe you won't be stupid next time. Of course, if the precip fell days ago and whomever is responsible for salting the parking lot got lazy and decided to "get around to it" then the owner of said parking lot should absolutely get an eternally memorable hammering right in the taint with a fat lawsuit sledge hammer.
I think you'll find that you're about to run into some big problems here.
First, how would this life/disability package offered by the company work? Where does the money come from? How does the employee accumulate funds in his "account"?
I'm an american. I'm a college educated, intelligent american. Why do I want more intelligent, college educated americans living in my country? That's more competition for me.
Let america dissolve into it's own mindless pop-culture juices. It just makes my life easier.
Slashdot Mirror
"One [government] to rule them all and in the darkness, bind them."
I'm not too keen on turning something that was (for all intents and purposes) invented, nurtured, and developed here, on American soil, over to european interests. What, now that the internet has political value the euro's want it? As far as I'm concerned, if they want it, they can reimburse us for the last 30 years of upkeep. This really strikes me as a thinly veiled grab for power. I really don't understand the logic that goes into making a suggestion like this. Just becuase everyone needs something doesn't make it communal property.
You have to admit, those wacky euros have a great sense of humor asking something ridiculous like this!
I'm kinda curious myself.
;)
Hardcore development? Recompiling the whole OS in 10 minutes or less?
Or maybe just instant gratification?
I suppose that, ultimately, my goal isn't to stop calls from a specific telemarketer but rather to drive telemarketers from the industry. I don't actually hate you. I just want to make life hard enough for you that you pursue another career.
Vindictive? Not so much. I don't actually hate these people, though I'd like them to think I do. It raises their stress level, as inhumane as that is. You see...
It's in my best interest to take advantage of the human element by initiating some amateurish psy-ops and raising the level of aggravation a telemarketer must endure above the level of compensation they receive. At that point, human nature takes its course: they look for another job and the marketing firm must hire and train another person.
No, it's not nice. But I lack sufficient empathy to identify with my victim and, subsequently, consider my actions "wrong". A form of psychopathy? Perhaps.
"And Qwest is, of course, allowed to call its own customers unless they've asked them specifically to be taken off the list (because they have an Existing Business Relationship)." ...AND...
"All you have to do is say 'put me on your do-not-call list'. That's it. THEY'LL NEVER BOTHER YOU AGAIN."
Great, so if I tell Quest to take me off their call list, they'll do it? Oh FUCK no. Why? Simply because they don't have to.
More and more service providers (of all sorts) are creating a "retentions" department that's authorized to do all sorts of crazy things to keep you there.
(bitchfest)
Hell, I cancelled my Sprint service because they changed their equipment replacement plan on me and made it more expensive for me to get a new phone than to switch service. When I called to actually cancel, they sent me to "retentions" where the guy offered me a new phone to keep me with them. This, of course, immediately after being told by customer service that I was screwed in the "using my equipment replacement plan to get new equipment" department. Customer Service != Retentions Department. Why the hell was I paying for an equipment replacement plan when I could just get a new phone for free by threatening to cancel?!?! I decided that I'd had enough of Sprint's crappy customer no-service and jumped ship. They will not profit from me any longer. SCREW THEM ALL TO DEATH!
(/bitchfest)
*ahem* I feel better now. Thanks, guys.
So I'm wondering. If you were a quest customer and called to cancel service, would they send you to retentions? If you spoke to retentions and told them to take you off their marketing list or you're cancelling service, they would make it so, wouldn't they? Because retentions has all sorts of wacky super powers.
I'd be curious to see.
Oh, and as far as being an ass to marketing guys, I have no problem with it. I'm an ass to guys like you on purpose. I'm not actually mad, but I strive to make you think i'm mad. Often, I'm on the verge of bursting into laughter at your stammering and stuttering when I lay into you. If it didn't bother you, you wouldn't have put up your post. Since it does bother you, I win and you lose. It's as simple as that. I'll keep "being an ass" to guys like you as long as it takes. My stress level isn't affected but yours is. Hell, you guys are theraputic for me. If I can release some work-generated stress into some recepticle on the other end of my phone, I come out ahead.
Now that I know misapplication of the DNCL regulations irritates guys like you more than just being an ass, I think I'll try that. Thanks for the advice.
"I find your lack of foresight disturbing."
-- Darth Mythandros
This really isn't news. Company A didn't forsee company B inventing something that will put company A out of business. Boo Hoo, too bad, so sad. Life goes on. Sure, this is slightly different in that we're talking about copyright issues but the fact of the matter is that technology progresses. Period. This topic isn't open for debate. You cannot contain this phenominon. Just like me, it's a force of nature. P2P and camera phones are here to stay so get used to it.
Adapt or die, baby. Adapt or die.
As I understand it, the billboard charts accurately reflect only what songs are played the most on the radio.
Consider the implications of that for a second. The charts may or may not reflect what any specific region actually wants to listen to. It seems like there should necessarily be a causality in all cases but apparently that's not always true.
It seems logical that the radio conglomerates would want to play the most popular songs. After all, the music is being played by companies that want only to maximize profits for stockholders. The music only matters as much as it sells commercial airtime and if you can't afford to miss the song coming on after the next commercial break, you can't afford to tune out during the commercial for fear of missing that song.
Anyways, my point: Some funky statistical skewing goes on behind the scenes when the record labels purchase commercial time to play a song that's just been released by one of their "hot new artists" (tm). This results in an artifically high numbers of plays that forces the song up the charts into a position it doesn't actually deserve. The radio execs, seeing a song so high on the chart, start scheduling it for more frequent circulation. If enough record companies do this...see the feedback loop?
Right. And everything that could have caused the permian extinction was either due to completely foreign causes, i.e. of extra-terrestrial origin, or an environmental anomaly. We have to limit this discussion to events occuring within a couple standard deviations away from the expected. The alternative is changing building codes to be able to withstand small meteor impacts because they could happen. See what I mean?
We don't know if we can destroy the earth. That's not to green-light attempts to do so, but just consider that we really don't know what our long term effect will be, if any.
"The work was funded in part by the Department of Homeland Security, Office of Domestic Preparedness through Dartmouth's Institute for Security Technology Studies (ISTS)."
An extrapolation as to why these guys need nanobots is left as an exercise for the reader.
The next 50 years of computing will see the introduction of AI to PC's in the form of an expert system designed to protect against intruders and malicious programs.
"The bomb creates tremendous heat and on large populated areas is so terrifying (terroristic weapon) that it scares your enemy into surrender. Which is exactly why we used them against the Japanese."
How exactly does one end a war without convincing one's adversary that defeat is imminent? When is the threat of defeat in war not terrifying?
*the universe implodes*
*stands up and raises hand*
You must assume that anyone who doesn't share the same views as you on political satire is simply stupid, and therefore cannot make a joke. How narrow-minded...
(By the way, I want you to know that it really hurt me to add that extraneous comma.)
Do you propose that they move to mountainous areas (prone to landslides in torrential rains) or flatlands (prone to cat 5 tornados that appear with little to no notice)?
Anywhere you go, you're going to find natural disasters.
Good point. TOS violations all around. The arrest becomes moot because no one should have an account after this.
They're cheating using a bot. Using a bot is a violation of TOS. A violation of TOS is between the holder of the contract and the signer of the contract only. The fact that he was using a bot only matters to the guy he mugged in that it was unbeatable. But would this same guy be equally as pissed if a character or mob that was vastly superior to him in power, controlled by a player instead of AI, took his sword? A character that is vastly superior in power is equally as unbeatable even in the hands of a person. Does that mean that anyone who can take his sword easily, human or AI, is in danger of having the cops called on his ass?
Oh, and let's say that it was a person controlling the character instead of a bot. Do you reall think he wouldn't have called the cops anyways?
Sure, I'd be pissed if someone took my $10,000 sword. I shouldn't have legal grounds to get that person arrested though.
No one can make a game that's impossible to cheat. Cheating is irrelevant to the legal culpability of the arrested party. He wasn't arrested for cheating, he was arrested for theft. Theft is theft. I think that it's incredibly retarted that he get arrested for theft of a virtual item. That's really what I'm getting at.
First of all, using a bot is breach of contract between the guy who got arrested and the game company. The contract said that no bots were to be used in the game. The guy broke his end of the deal and that's between him and the game company only. The reason that the bot is importants is because... ...bots make a character unbeatable. This guy was attacked by something unbeatable. So how is this any different from a 55th level wizard knocking down a 1st level ranger and taking his lunchmoney? isn't the 55th level wizard unbeatable to a 1st level ranger? It doesn't matter how the arrested party was unbeatable. The fact of the matter is that he was unbeatable.
To address your suggested modified analogy...I'm wearing the crown jewels to a demolition derby. Regardless of whether or not someone broke the rules, it's a demolition derby. You don't bring something to a demolition derby that you know you don't want destroyed. If I took the case to a court, the judge would laugh at me as he threw out the case (rightly so).
Likewise, the programmers built the ability to mug into the game. There are a finite number of actions you can take and mugging is one of them. The programmers would not have built mugging into the game if they did not fully expect it to be used. The purchasers of this game should realize that mugging is expected to occur. Nothing special has been built into the game to prevent you from losing virtual items. As a result, if you purchase a virtual item, you do so knowing that it may be taken from you at any time. Keep in mind that assault and battery perpetrated by one virtual persona against another virtual persona is not illegal in meatspace.
And to head off the argument...no, you cannot use some strange realspace argument involving the implicit consent to allow the theft of property carried if you walk through a bad part of town. The only reason this guy was arrested was for theft, not assault and battery. Assault, battery, and theft are not legal in meatspace. Assault and battery are perfectly legal for meatspace players to perpetrate against another meatspace player by way of virtual personas in this game. The only issue in question is whether or not I can use a virtual persona to steal virtual items from another virtual persona.
Since you believe that this should be a civil case, let me ask you this: if the item sold and then stolen had been discovered to be duped by way of a bug and the server ops removed the offending item, would the server ops be liable for the cost of the item?
I have to disagree with you. If I could claim legal posession of the crown jewels and wore them as a participant in a demolition derby, it would be my own fault if they were destroyed. Likewise, this guy bought a virtual item where virtual curb stomping followed by virtual theft of his virtual lunch money were accepted elements of gameplay.
There's another way to approach this too.
If you buy a virtual sword with meatspace cash, you get protection from it's theft. Meanwhile, the exact same virtual sword that I quested for (instead of buying) is up for grabs because I didn't buy it with meatspace cash?
So now, companies have to add code to flag characters that purchased items so that the purchased items can't be stolen on a successful PK?
Does any of this make sense to you?
So yeah, no civil case either.
Maybe we're getting into the realm of personal opinion but...
Let's consider some other game where character death results in XP loss. If I purchase a 50th level character and I get PK'd back a few levels. Are the parties who perpetrated the PK's liable for destruction of property? I did lose monetary value, after all. What about if I level my own character up to 50th with the intention of selling it and then get pk'd back a few levels? I lost value again. What if a MOB kills me and I lose levels that I purchased -- or better yet, the MOB kills me and takes items that I purchased? Is the company that produced the game now liable for theft?
What if I level it up to 50th myself without intending to sell it? Does that make me free range meat, ripe for the picking? Should merchants and customers really be afforded legal protection in meatspace from virtual crimes while the "common citizen" is neglected? Doesn't that beg the issue of "virtual equal rights"? Why should my neighbor be afforded meatspace enforced leagal protection from virtual theft for the +1e55 sword of beat-you-down that he purchased for $10,000 of real money when the same sword that I quested to obtain is "up for grabs" to anyone who can take it from me because I didn't pay money for it? Isn't this a kind of virtual aristocracy where only the people who can afford to spend cash on virtual items get real meatspace rights?
Do you see the pandora's box you're opening? Can you comprehend the far reaching implications of affording this fool legal rights on his virtual phallus^h^h^h^h^h^h^hsword?
I don't think that each and every tiny detail needs to be worked out. I do think that if you're going to call something broken and suggest we toss it out, that you should have some idea of how it's replacement is going to work. As it stands, you've offered no ideas on how to make your idea work and then have the audacity to tell me that I have a bad attitude when I start asking you to make your idea anything more than amorphous. Honestly, I'm kinda stunned.
If you think that comprehensive insurance is punishment before the fact, you're not looking at it from the company's point of view. You know that there's going to be a big payout (worker's comp). You can either amortize the payments (insurance) or be liable for one lump sum that's going to wipe out your surplus and possibly put you in the red -- if you're really lucky, it'll be the end of your company.
Look at the parent post. Here's what he said, paraphrased:
...let's say that I'm making prefab steel reinforced concrete with inches-across cables that are stretched out under thousands of lbs of force and one of the machines fails. The machine fails becuase my employer didn't perform routine maintenance. The routine maintenance wasn't performed because he wanted to save up some money so he could afford a blue lamborghini to go along with his red and white ones. As a result, one guy get's his head taken off and I lose my legs at the waist. And what you're saying is that my employeer should not be held responsible?
If you choose to work in a dangerous job and get hurt, you had it coming to you. You knew what the risks were and you took the job anyways. Why should you get money for getting hurt while doing a dangerous job? You're not entitled to it.
It sounds like he made an absolute statement, so...
That's what the parent post to my original post sounds like it's saying. This is what I'm warning against.
I whole heartedly agree that if you're flat-out running across a parking lot in the middle of winter, blindfolded, where you know for certain that there are hyuuuuuuge patches of smooth-as-glass ice, you deserve to not only break your leg but have someone come over and kick you in the cracked part. Maybe you won't be stupid next time. Of course, if the precip fell days ago and whomever is responsible for salting the parking lot got lazy and decided to "get around to it" then the owner of said parking lot should absolutely get an eternally memorable hammering right in the taint with a fat lawsuit sledge hammer.
That's all I'm sayin'.
I think you'll find that you're about to run into some big problems here.
First, how would this life/disability package offered by the company work? Where does the money come from? How does the employee accumulate funds in his "account"?
You mean, like, compensation to a cop's family when said cop gets shot while trying to keep your butt safe?
Or compensation to a worker when he loses an arm while working around heavy machinery?
Or compensation to...Do I really need to continue?
It's the same exact principle.
I'm an american. I'm a college educated, intelligent american. Why do I want more intelligent, college educated americans living in my country? That's more competition for me.
Let america dissolve into it's own mindless pop-culture juices. It just makes my life easier.