By refusing to accept liability, they are basically claiming not to be at fault should something go wrong.
I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. Either the product is defective, or it's not. If the car was defective, the company typically can't get out of it by saying, "we're not responsible for defects". Otherwise, there wouldn't be all the sturm und drang about, say, the supposedly defective accelerators in Toyota cars some years ago.
Why should I have to pay because some dumbass has smoked most of their life, is obese or does drugs and now wants me to pay for their medical bills?
According to some on here, BECAUSE. To them, it's not your money so you have no right to not pay.
With auto insurance, if your rates are sky-high, it's typically because you made a choice to be a horrible driver. That's fair. With health insurance, if your rates are sky-high or companies simply won't offer to insure you for any amount of money (note the difference right there), it's often because you're unhealthy through no fault of your own -- bad genes, got cancer, whatever.
There is actually an exemption in Obamacare which says you can be charged higher premiums if you smoke, because you decided to be a dumbass that way. And the insurance companies do so.
Tort law typically forces companies to assume liabilities for things that are their fault. If you offer something for sale, and it doesn't work for the purpose you sold it for, you're typically on the hook even if you put "NO WARRANTY" on it. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know the details, but it's likely legislatures will look at this issue once self-driving vehicles become a thing and change the law to whatever they think is best anyway.
Why don't we just have the car's computer check for faults and not operate if any are detected? For non-critical situations, have the screen say, "service needed, car ceases operation in 200 miles" when a worn component is detected, and then count down the miles right up to the turn-off point if the owner doesn't take the car in. If you let that counter go to 0, you're a dimwit, and now you have to tow your car to the repair shop.
Government regulation is good for this kind of safety feature.
In a bathroom situation, you're dealing with other people's urine and fecal matter potentially against your bare skin. To contrast, people usually wear clothes when in a car, and usually are not urinating or pooping in the car.
A few conspicuously placed security cameras in the rental car, and signs saying that passengers are liable for damages to the car, would ensure that people would follow this typical model of car usage.
Good salesmen get overpaid in every field. They also are under intense pressure to perform and get fired/laid off if their numbers go down, for any reason. High-stress, high-risk, high-reward.
High-powered salesmen will probably migrate to other fields after self-driving cars take over, because all the money will drop out of the market when rates go way down because there are such fewer accidents.
Look, as a society. you have a choice: - Allow immigrants and foreigners some leeway in not knowing your native language. - Don't allow immigrants and foreigners into your country.
Some linguists think it is the case that it is physically impossible to become natively proficient in a language after 12 or so. Even if this isn't the case, learning a new language is an arduous and time-intensive process for an adult who has other things to do with his time. Expecting every tourist to your country to learn your language fluently before going is simply stupid. Expecting an exchange student to learn your language fluently before going is also not reasonable: this person is a full-time student who has a million other things to learn besides a giant bidirectional map between his words and yours.
Expecting true immigrants to learn your language, after they've been there some time, is reasonable. Immigrants are planning to be in your country for the rest of their lives, or at least many years, and it's reasonable to expect they would make a time investment to, over the course of 5-10 years, become proficient in the language of the country they are in so that they're not in a social ghetto where they can only interact and befriend other immigrants. This usually happens; when it doesn't, it's troubling, because it fractures the country's culture.
BUT, the point is... if you are in a country that anyone wants to visit, for any reason, you will occasionally run into people in your country who don't speak the native language. The most you might expect from these people is that they've made a token effort to memorize some key phrases to shift some of the burden of communication to them instead of you. And if you don't live in a country anyone wants to visit, well, that sucks for you.
Insightful comment. I'm sorry about what happened to you. However, it sounds like you may have made a few bad decisions, because if you lost "14 years of savings" in your retirement plan, well, you were doing it wrong. Some rules:
- Don't put value in pensions. - Don't hold too much stock in your employer; if you can buy it below market value, then sell most of it at market value as soon as you can and diversify right away.
Finally, the job market has picked up now, and you probably shouldn't be working at a 25% salary cut anymore. I'd look into jumping ship or asking for a raise.
What a brilliant argument. "This works well for the easiest, most common case, so obviously it's awesome and there are no problems." I hope you're not working on anything important.
NAT constrains the web in ways that aren't immediately obvious. Applications haven't been built, ideas haven't been implemented, because of the way it chokes the client endpoints of the Internet.
Why did it take so long for us to have Skype-like services? Because, despite the best efforts of the best network engineers, we can't get two home computers behind NATs to reliably talk to each other. Skype can't always do it with its shitty proprietary protocol, either, but, when it fails, the Skype client falls back to routing the traffic through Skype's own servers. This doubles the traffic necessary for communication, so it's shitty, and it also means Skype has to have hugely deep pockets to pay for and run this otherwise completely unnecessary server infrastructure.
So, instead of peer-to-peer VoIP communication, which would make sense, we have to have a huge company proxying traffic for everyone because we can't make two endpoints talk to each other. This is hugely wasteful, a single point of failure, a single point for mass surveillance, and a single point for corporate asshattery. And this is just one example of the type of wart we have because of widespread NAT.
Do your hypothetical true Scotsmen like to use Skype in addition to watching cat videos? Then they're negatively affected by NAT. They probably don't realize it, but they are.
I often wonder what possesses people to make blatantly inaccurate statements, such as yours here, on Slashdot. So help me out. Did you just make that up and assume it's true because it made sense to you, are you deliberately misinforming people, or are you some sort of crank?
And, relatedly, does anyone really think the dodo is extinct? Surely they must be somewhere, maybe being mistaken for pigeons or chickens or something.
Also dinosaurs. Maybe the abominable snowman's really a raptor or brontosaurus and just no one's gotten a good look.
Eventually someone's going to find one of these supposedly "extinct" animals and blow the sheeple's minds. Nothing can ever really go "extinct". It's just too big of a big world.
Our justice system is historically based on the theory of retributive justice. Retributive justice is not the same as vengeance. Retributive justice theory says that the punishment must "fit" the crime, based on its severity. This theory says it's also impersonal; society is not supposed to get pleasure from the act of delivering this type of justice.
Of course, this makes no sense. How does inflicting more harm do anything to "solve" the fact that harm has already been inflicted? This is the logic of a 5-year-old. So utilitarian justifications are tacked on when people grow up and try to figure out what the fuck is going on. These include deterrence, rehabilitation, etc. Eventually, as society grows up, this tail will wag the retributive dog more and more until we come to a better system. This will take ages to happen everywhere, though it's already happened in some Nordic countries.
Retributive justice is probably a self-unaware sublimation of a desire for vengeance. But that's a psychological argument, not a legal one.
Again, our legal system recognizes no criminal right of a victim against those who harm him. The victim's recourse is a civil lawsuit, where the principle, incidentally, is that the victim has a right to force the one who harmed him to cure the injury. You don't fulfill a contract, you pay a penalty for my inconvenience. You hit me with your car, you pay for my medical bills and compensate me for the pain I suffered. And so on. It goes all the way to, "if you kill me, you pay my estate the amount of money my life was worth". You may notice this actually makes a lot more sense than retributive "justice", although it's obviously not perfect because no amount of money will bring me back to life; the harm just can't be undone in that case. But that's neither here nor there.
So there's nothing anywhere saying you have a civil right, or would have a civil right if not for criminal law, or have a civil right that the government is exercising for you. Someone hurts you, you go to court and get compensated for your injury. That's YOUR right. The state has an ENTIRELY SEPARATE right to punish people who do bad things, because Kindergartner-logic + utilitarian handwaving (NOT REVENGE), and you have no interest in that whatsoever.
This is not correct. Crimes are considered injuries to the state, not to the individual victim (if any) of the crime. Victims can sometimes sue the offender to recover damages, but that's not criminal law.
The state isn't acting on behalf of the victim, either. Crimes can be prosecuted even if the victim doesn't want them to be prosecuted, and, if a prosecutor decides not to go after a particular suspected offender, the victim has no recourse.
Nowhere in our legal system is there a civil right for "vengeance".
I have no idea where you got that from. Maybe you've dug up something from England in 1200 or something. If so, I assure that precedent is no longer applicable.
It's worth pointing out that being gay isn't a federally protected class. So, unless the state government has stepped in, you CAN refuse to hire someone because they're gay, tell them, and there's crap-all they can do about it. You can even turn away customers because they're gay.
How big a problem is this in practice? I don't know.
All available evidence indicates the board of directors of the Mozilla Corporation, a subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation, did not oust him from his position as CEO of the Mozilla Corporation. He left on his own. The guy has been a technical leader of the Netscape codebase for literally decades, and I'm sure he wanted to do what was best for the organization.
By all accounts, the board of directors at Mozilla absolutely did not pressure or force him to resign. He resigned on his own because/he/ thought the issue was distracting, and it would be better for him to go.
This is believable: Eich is the inventor of JavaScript and has been with the Netscape code base almost since day 1. He has a lot invested in Firefox and I'm sure doesn't want a bunch of idiots bringing it down because they don't personally like him, which is what was happening.
Okay, if that's true, then some states have taken the ABA's suggestion. What is relevant is still the individual state bars' ethics rules. Even if they adopt most of the model rules, anything they don't adopt or adopt in a modified form will not be the same as in the model rules.
How do you stop people fucking all the time without regard because everyone gets a free ride and over populating the planet?
Oh! Yay! I got one!
You force people to get sterilized after they have 2 kids. Remember, it's Communism, so no individual rights.
Communo-techno-utopia would be awesome, man. Just like any utopia.
And I program stuff even when no one pays me to, so I imagine I would program stuff even when no one pays me to in a techno-utopia. I'm not the only one who loves programmers. It would be a bunch of part-timers doing it for love, probably.
But we're probably 200 years away or more from being able to live in a techno-utopia:(
c) you're a lawyer, you're lying about what you are doing, and you should give me your name now so i can report you for an ethics violation under the model rules and your state's bar's ethics rules.
a) Violating the "model rules" is meaningless. Model laws and rules are an example and a suggestion, not actual laws or rules.
b) What motivation do you think this individual could possibly have to tell you his name when you say this is what you are going to do if he does?
Slashdot Mirror
By refusing to accept liability, they are basically claiming not to be at fault should something go wrong.
I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. Either the product is defective, or it's not. If the car was defective, the company typically can't get out of it by saying, "we're not responsible for defects". Otherwise, there wouldn't be all the sturm und drang about, say, the supposedly defective accelerators in Toyota cars some years ago.
Why should I have to pay because some dumbass has smoked most of their life, is obese or does drugs and now wants me to pay for their medical bills?
According to some on here, BECAUSE. To them, it's not your money so you have no right to not pay.
With auto insurance, if your rates are sky-high, it's typically because you made a choice to be a horrible driver. That's fair. With health insurance, if your rates are sky-high or companies simply won't offer to insure you for any amount of money (note the difference right there), it's often because you're unhealthy through no fault of your own -- bad genes, got cancer, whatever.
There is actually an exemption in Obamacare which says you can be charged higher premiums if you smoke, because you decided to be a dumbass that way. And the insurance companies do so.
Tort law typically forces companies to assume liabilities for things that are their fault. If you offer something for sale, and it doesn't work for the purpose you sold it for, you're typically on the hook even if you put "NO WARRANTY" on it. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know the details, but it's likely legislatures will look at this issue once self-driving vehicles become a thing and change the law to whatever they think is best anyway.
Why don't we just have the car's computer check for faults and not operate if any are detected? For non-critical situations, have the screen say, "service needed, car ceases operation in 200 miles" when a worn component is detected, and then count down the miles right up to the turn-off point if the owner doesn't take the car in. If you let that counter go to 0, you're a dimwit, and now you have to tow your car to the repair shop.
Government regulation is good for this kind of safety feature.
In a bathroom situation, you're dealing with other people's urine and fecal matter potentially against your bare skin. To contrast, people usually wear clothes when in a car, and usually are not urinating or pooping in the car.
A few conspicuously placed security cameras in the rental car, and signs saying that passengers are liable for damages to the car, would ensure that people would follow this typical model of car usage.
Do you never take taxis?
Then get uninsured motorist coverage. It's a very popular and usually very, very inexpensive add-on to liability.
Good salesmen get overpaid in every field. They also are under intense pressure to perform and get fired/laid off if their numbers go down, for any reason. High-stress, high-risk, high-reward.
High-powered salesmen will probably migrate to other fields after self-driving cars take over, because all the money will drop out of the market when rates go way down because there are such fewer accidents.
Look, as a society. you have a choice:
- Allow immigrants and foreigners some leeway in not knowing your native language.
- Don't allow immigrants and foreigners into your country.
Some linguists think it is the case that it is physically impossible to become natively proficient in a language after 12 or so. Even if this isn't the case, learning a new language is an arduous and time-intensive process for an adult who has other things to do with his time. Expecting every tourist to your country to learn your language fluently before going is simply stupid. Expecting an exchange student to learn your language fluently before going is also not reasonable: this person is a full-time student who has a million other things to learn besides a giant bidirectional map between his words and yours.
Expecting true immigrants to learn your language, after they've been there some time, is reasonable. Immigrants are planning to be in your country for the rest of their lives, or at least many years, and it's reasonable to expect they would make a time investment to, over the course of 5-10 years, become proficient in the language of the country they are in so that they're not in a social ghetto where they can only interact and befriend other immigrants. This usually happens; when it doesn't, it's troubling, because it fractures the country's culture.
BUT, the point is ... if you are in a country that anyone wants to visit, for any reason, you will occasionally run into people in your country who don't speak the native language. The most you might expect from these people is that they've made a token effort to memorize some key phrases to shift some of the burden of communication to them instead of you. And if you don't live in a country anyone wants to visit, well, that sucks for you.
Insightful comment. I'm sorry about what happened to you. However, it sounds like you may have made a few bad decisions, because if you lost "14 years of savings" in your retirement plan, well, you were doing it wrong. Some rules:
- Don't put value in pensions.
- Don't hold too much stock in your employer; if you can buy it below market value, then sell most of it at market value as soon as you can and diversify right away.
Finally, the job market has picked up now, and you probably shouldn't be working at a 25% salary cut anymore. I'd look into jumping ship or asking for a raise.
What a brilliant argument. "This works well for the easiest, most common case, so obviously it's awesome and there are no problems." I hope you're not working on anything important.
NAT constrains the web in ways that aren't immediately obvious. Applications haven't been built, ideas haven't been implemented, because of the way it chokes the client endpoints of the Internet.
Why did it take so long for us to have Skype-like services? Because, despite the best efforts of the best network engineers, we can't get two home computers behind NATs to reliably talk to each other. Skype can't always do it with its shitty proprietary protocol, either, but, when it fails, the Skype client falls back to routing the traffic through Skype's own servers. This doubles the traffic necessary for communication, so it's shitty, and it also means Skype has to have hugely deep pockets to pay for and run this otherwise completely unnecessary server infrastructure.
So, instead of peer-to-peer VoIP communication, which would make sense, we have to have a huge company proxying traffic for everyone because we can't make two endpoints talk to each other. This is hugely wasteful, a single point of failure, a single point for mass surveillance, and a single point for corporate asshattery. And this is just one example of the type of wart we have because of widespread NAT.
Do your hypothetical true Scotsmen like to use Skype in addition to watching cat videos? Then they're negatively affected by NAT. They probably don't realize it, but they are.
The sooner NAT dies, the better for everyone.
(treaties override the US constitution as per precedent)
Wrong.
I often wonder what possesses people to make blatantly inaccurate statements, such as yours here, on Slashdot. So help me out. Did you just make that up and assume it's true because it made sense to you, are you deliberately misinforming people, or are you some sort of crank?
Yeah, man, totally.
And, relatedly, does anyone really think the dodo is extinct? Surely they must be somewhere, maybe being mistaken for pigeons or chickens or something.
Also dinosaurs. Maybe the abominable snowman's really a raptor or brontosaurus and just no one's gotten a good look.
Eventually someone's going to find one of these supposedly "extinct" animals and blow the sheeple's minds. Nothing can ever really go "extinct". It's just too big of a big world.
I'm glad you don't hate fun!
If you have only one day in Los Angeles, make it a train day!
No.
Our justice system is historically based on the theory of retributive justice. Retributive justice is not the same as vengeance. Retributive justice theory says that the punishment must "fit" the crime, based on its severity. This theory says it's also impersonal; society is not supposed to get pleasure from the act of delivering this type of justice.
Of course, this makes no sense. How does inflicting more harm do anything to "solve" the fact that harm has already been inflicted? This is the logic of a 5-year-old. So utilitarian justifications are tacked on when people grow up and try to figure out what the fuck is going on. These include deterrence, rehabilitation, etc. Eventually, as society grows up, this tail will wag the retributive dog more and more until we come to a better system. This will take ages to happen everywhere, though it's already happened in some Nordic countries.
Retributive justice is probably a self-unaware sublimation of a desire for vengeance. But that's a psychological argument, not a legal one.
Again, our legal system recognizes no criminal right of a victim against those who harm him. The victim's recourse is a civil lawsuit, where the principle, incidentally, is that the victim has a right to force the one who harmed him to cure the injury. You don't fulfill a contract, you pay a penalty for my inconvenience. You hit me with your car, you pay for my medical bills and compensate me for the pain I suffered. And so on. It goes all the way to, "if you kill me, you pay my estate the amount of money my life was worth". You may notice this actually makes a lot more sense than retributive "justice", although it's obviously not perfect because no amount of money will bring me back to life; the harm just can't be undone in that case. But that's neither here nor there.
So there's nothing anywhere saying you have a civil right, or would have a civil right if not for criminal law, or have a civil right that the government is exercising for you. Someone hurts you, you go to court and get compensated for your injury. That's YOUR right. The state has an ENTIRELY SEPARATE right to punish people who do bad things, because Kindergartner-logic + utilitarian handwaving (NOT REVENGE), and you have no interest in that whatsoever.
This is not correct. Crimes are considered injuries to the state, not to the individual victim (if any) of the crime. Victims can sometimes sue the offender to recover damages, but that's not criminal law.
The state isn't acting on behalf of the victim, either. Crimes can be prosecuted even if the victim doesn't want them to be prosecuted, and, if a prosecutor decides not to go after a particular suspected offender, the victim has no recourse.
Nowhere in our legal system is there a civil right for "vengeance".
I have no idea where you got that from. Maybe you've dug up something from England in 1200 or something. If so, I assure that precedent is no longer applicable.
It's worth pointing out that being gay isn't a federally protected class. So, unless the state government has stepped in, you CAN refuse to hire someone because they're gay, tell them, and there's crap-all they can do about it. You can even turn away customers because they're gay.
How big a problem is this in practice? I don't know.
All available evidence indicates the board of directors of the Mozilla Corporation, a subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation, did not oust him from his position as CEO of the Mozilla Corporation. He left on his own. The guy has been a technical leader of the Netscape codebase for literally decades, and I'm sure he wanted to do what was best for the organization.
By all accounts, the board of directors at Mozilla absolutely did not pressure or force him to resign. He resigned on his own because /he/ thought the issue was distracting, and it would be better for him to go.
This is believable: Eich is the inventor of JavaScript and has been with the Netscape code base almost since day 1. He has a lot invested in Firefox and I'm sure doesn't want a bunch of idiots bringing it down because they don't personally like him, which is what was happening.
Okay, if that's true, then some states have taken the ABA's suggestion. What is relevant is still the individual state bars' ethics rules. Even if they adopt most of the model rules, anything they don't adopt or adopt in a modified form will not be the same as in the model rules.
I'm not the only one who loves programmers.
lawl that should be "loves programming".
How do you stop people fucking all the time without regard because everyone gets a free ride and over populating the planet?
Oh! Yay! I got one!
You force people to get sterilized after they have 2 kids. Remember, it's Communism, so no individual rights.
Communo-techno-utopia would be awesome, man. Just like any utopia.
And I program stuff even when no one pays me to, so I imagine I would program stuff even when no one pays me to in a techno-utopia. I'm not the only one who loves programmers. It would be a bunch of part-timers doing it for love, probably.
But we're probably 200 years away or more from being able to live in a techno-utopia :(
c) you're a lawyer, you're lying about what you are doing, and you should give me your name now so i can report you for an ethics violation under the model rules and your state's bar's ethics rules.
a) Violating the "model rules" is meaningless. Model laws and rules are an example and a suggestion, not actual laws or rules.
b) What motivation do you think this individual could possibly have to tell you his name when you say this is what you are going to do if he does?
Hi there,
Here's a good article for you to read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
Your fluency is already quite good, and I wish you continuing success in your ESOL studies.