And why would it be handy to be able to plug a USB stick into the iPhone? You can't DO anything with it. The OS doesn't support it.
Applications could be written to use it, and presumably if it had had a USB host connector all along, the OS would support it natively. But that would be a different type of port, and it's beside the point anyway. This is about plugging the iPod into other host devices, not using the iPod as a USB host.
So as I see it, this is a big huge non-issue, and if it were an issue, it'd be an issue chiefly cause of software reasons. The software is what really creates the lock-in. Not the non-standard connector.
Software creates some lock-in too, but don't ignore the accessory lock-in created by the non-standard, patented connector. An iPod docking alarm clock costs as much as a dozen apps.
As a side note, the dock connector is nicely skinny, which comes in handy if you're making really skinny stuff.
Heh. Hold that dock connector up to a Micro USB connector and see which one is skinnier.
The issue is that the iPhone, iPods etc. don't support doing anything useful with most of the stuff you could connect via USB anyway. You can't plug in a 500gig drive and use it. You can't plug in a keyboard or mouse and use them. Which means there's not a compelling reason to use USB, especially since the existing connector is better-shaped for docking anyway.
I really don't get why people bitch about this so much, therefore.
Well, it would be handy to be able to plug a USB memory stick into an iPhone, but the real win would come from using standard USB connectors to sync and charge the iPod.
People bitch because the iPod dock connector is proprietary and patented, not because it's technologically inferior. Since the iPod is the most popular MP3 player, most accessories have iPod dock connectors, and other players can't connect to them. That leads to lock-in, as mentioned upthread.
That is, they will learn, "The reason I am doing this is to get money," not, "The reason I am doing this is because science/art/music/literature/philosophy/dance/woodworking/programming/math/history/writing is fun."
But they don't think it's fun -- that's why they're unmotivated in the first place. What they'll learn is "The reason I am doing this is because other people make all the important decisions about my life."
Currently, we don't reward kids for doing schoolwork; we punish them for not doing it. Is that really the best way to get them interested in these subjects? Doesn't it make more sense to get them to associate studying with something positive?
I wonder why you think that wouldn't be suggested ("surely"), considering that's exactly what research shows. Extrinsic motivators de-motivate student interest in the subjects being taught.
Students who need to be paid in order to learn are, obviously, already unmotivated.
This is a plan for creating students who hate the subjects being taught.
Do you really think it's better to force students to do schoolwork for no visible benefit -- somehow that's going to make them love the subjects being taught? Do you see that working today?
3.3.1 — Applications may only use Documented APIs in the manner prescribed by Apple and must not use or call any private APIs. Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine, and only code written in C, C++, and Objective-C may compile and directly link against the Documented APIs (e.g., Applications that link to Documented APIs through an intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool are prohibited).
Note "originally written" and the mention of translation/compatibility tools.
If Adobe wants to, they can make their "compiler" a language engine that rewrites a flash/flex app in objective C.
No, they can't. That's exactly what Apple is now prohibiting. It's not enough that your program is compiled from Objective C: it has to be Objective C that was typed in by human hands, not generated by a translator.
I disagree. What Apple is doing is more complex than is normal, but it also yields better results for platforms where battery and processing power are important limitations.
That remains to be seen. Multitasking on Android works pretty damn well, without limiting developers to a specific set of seven background operations that Steve thinks "ought to be enough for anybody".
AppleInsider claims it's due to the new multitasking features in iPhone OS 4.0. I don't know if I fully buy that
Don't believe it for a second. All you need to know is this: Apple is banning source translators. Even if there's a legitimate reason for iPhone 4.0's pseudo "multitasking" to require apps to be compiled from C/C++/ObjC, that still doesn't explain why some ObjC code is allowed and other ObjC code is prohibited (based solely on whether the code was typed in by a human or generated by a program).
I just got a Droid this week, and I got the 2.1 upgrade the same day I activated it. If your friends are still waiting, there are ways to download the update and install it manually.
Like MS demanding Win7 apps be written in a managed language (ie C#) or Android in Dalvik/Java. iPhone demands C/C++/ObjC. What's the big deal here?
First, I think you mean Windows Phone 7, not Windows 7.
Second, WinPhone7 and Android only "demand" that your compiled program conform to a certain virtual machine spec. You don't have to use their tools or write in their preferred languages; you can use any language that compiles to the right format. (And in fact, Android has a native development kit now, so you can write 99% of your app in any language that compiles to ARM!)
Third, Apple's demand goes even further than the demand you're falsely ascribing to MS and Google. They don't just demand that you have C/C++/ObjC code for your program -- they also demand that your program be originally written in one of those languages.
Let's take a trip down memory lane. In the early 80s, there were no direct C++ compilers: instead, there was something called cfront, which translated C++ code into C. It would be strange for an OS vendor to demand that applications be written in C, of course, because all that really matters is whether the compiled program can run on the hardware. But it would be batshit insane for an OS vendor to prohibit programs that were originally written in C++ and then translated to C, because even if there were some legitimate reason to require C code, it would apply to all C code. There would've been absolutely no technical justification for that ban, just like today there's no technical justification for banning programs translated from Flash to Objective-C.
The dock connector has audio and control signals which are used for use in external speaker systems and car docks for example. Also video signals for driving TVs. USB doesn't have those.
You can add them to USB, like HTC did for their mini-USB-compatible connector.
The language requirement by Apple is related to multitasking.
No, it isn't. Even if there were a sensible reason for iPhone 4.0's pseudo-"multitasking" to require code to be written in a certain language -- which there isn't -- this ban would still be unrelated to multitasking, because it bans translations. In other words, even if your code is written in Objective-C, Apple will still reject it if that Objective-C code was written by a translation program instead of a human being.
But you're ignoring the other RESULTS you'll accidentally succeed in achieving, viz. teaching the kid that remuneration is the only acceptable form of reward. [...] Personally, I'm interested in intelligent, creative kids - writers, poets, scientists, kids with real curiosity who want to do things because they love to do them, because the problem fascinates them, because they want to KNOW, goddamnit.
Well, surely you aren't suggesting that forcing kids to do schoolwork for no pay -- the status quo -- is somehow more likely to turn them into writers/poets/scientists than paying them to do schoolwork. So what's your alternative?
On the other hand, people don't force you to improve yourself either. There are no police officers charged with making sure that you learn something about an assigned topic every day. You decide what to study and what to ignore, and if you feel like you know enough for now, you can decide not to study anything at all.
Seriously, if you have to pay someone to do well in school, its throwing money right down the drain.
I agree, but the problem is more fundamental. If we have to pay someone to do well in school, they shouldn't be there in the first place. Let them spend their time on something they are motivated to do. They'll learn whatever they need to know along the way, and the things they learn will actually be relevant to their lives.
Re:CmdrTaco drags big brass ones along the ground
on
iPad Review
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, that doesn't solve the uploading/downloading issue, but how big are your PDFs anyway?
For a while, I was frequently referencing a handful of PDFs ranging from 10 to 70 MB.
See, I'd agree that those are all perfectly cromulent arguments in support of the ipad being a terrible book reader. For PDFs, where you're likely to be reading inside, at home or at work, for a shorter period of time, they just don't seem to matter much.
Some PDFs are books. I don't think there's much difference in requirements between reading a "book" and reading a 300 page PDF.
Re:CmdrTaco drags big brass ones along the ground
on
iPad Review
·
· Score: 1
If they're not, then put them there. How is that harder than coping to an external device?
Firing up an FTP client, uploading the file, then typing in a URL is more work than dragging it to a USB device, and that only works if you already have a hosting account set up. Plus, if the file is large, you have to wait for it to upload from your PC and then wait again for it to download to the Pad.
I actually use the kindle myself for reading PDFs, and it is terrible. It's slow, has no color, no wlan, and if you want to view a whole page at once it is as expensive as the ipad. Internet only works in the US, too.
The iPad is also terrible, for reasons already stated: poor battery life, weight, and a screen that's unreadable in bright light. Outside of wifi range, internet only works on AT&T's overloaded network, only if you pay for it, and you have to pay hundreds extra just to have that option.
The very best that a VM runtime can do is infer that a class of access is impossible and thus exclude traps for it. This only works in extremely limited circumstances, and still requires code to be correct.
That's exactly what "managed code" means in this context: the VM spec and the JIT-time verifier prohibit the types of accesses that would need to be trapped.
For example, you can't dereference a pointer that might point to any arbitrary memory location, because the verifier won't let you cast an integer to a managed pointer; you can only get a managed pointer by taking the address of a variable. You can't dereference a pointer to a local variable in a stack frame that no longer exists, because the verifier won't let you return the pointer out of that frame, and won't let any other function store the pointer anywhere except in an even deeper stack frame. This is checked statically, before the code runs, and then doesn't need to be checked again. (Certain operations do need runtime checking, like object casts and array access.)
The circumstances in which it works aren't really all that limited: just look at all the programs that have been written for.NET and Java. As for requiring code to be correct, well, that's what the verifier is for.
Re:CmdrTaco drags big brass ones along the ground
on
iPad Review
·
· Score: 1
If you're going for the multitasking aspect, then thats just silly. The iPhone/iPad hides the 'app exits if not in the foreground' nature of OS pretty much flawlessly unless you don't bother to write your app properly. Works pretty much identical to the way PalmOS used to work back in the day and results in far more battery life than would be the case otherwise.
Multitasking is about more than quickly switching from one app to another. For example, the iPhone/iPad can't play Pandora while you surf the web, or automatically silence your ringer when you move into a certain GPS region.
There aren't multiple user accounts because its not meant to be a shared device. Its a personal datapad, its meant to be used by one person. Apple wants you to buy one for each person that uses it.
Then perhaps they should have priced it accordingly.
Re:CmdrTaco drags big brass ones along the ground
on
iPad Review
·
· Score: 1
Pulling PDFs to the device over the wireless is going to be easier than going through a usb stick in almost every situation.
Does it have SMB support? No? Well, you'd better hope the PDFs you're trying to read are in your email inbox or on a web site.
Display is going to be perfect and portability will be great. You are talking about the one area where this thing will be better than everything that has ever existed.
Perhaps you're forgetting the Kindle, which weighs half as much, runs for weeks instead of hours on a charge, and is readable in sunlight.
Hollywood != real life
on
iPad Review
·
· Score: 1
The iPad is something out of Star Trek or HHGTTG, the sort of thing nerds have been dreaming about for decades.
Yes, exactly... and just like so much other Hollywood technology, it only makes sense in fiction.
Take another example from Star Trek: the vertically mounted touch screen. Sounds great in theory, but when it was tried in the 80s, people realized that it's really, really tiring to use one for any length of time.
Or look at that other sci-fi staple, the video phone. They're all over TV and movies, a universal symbol of how we'll communicate in the future. In fact, they've existed in real life for decades, but almost no one uses them, because it turns out most people prefer audio-only conversations most of the time; they'd rather not have to put on pants to answer the phone, or give the impression that they're hiding something by turning the camera off. But those thoughts don't occur to them when they see a video phone in a movie.
A tablet computer is one of those things that looks cool on TV and screams "futuristic", but actually isn't very practical in real life.
The proper comparison isn't to changing corporate policies; it's to dealing with *different businesses*. Which is easier. Much, MUCH easier than changing any given law.
No, that's not a proper comparison. Here are some proper comparisons:
changing laws <=> changing corporate policies moving to a different state/country <=> dealing with a different business
Changing laws is easier than changing corporate policies, and in many cases, moving to another jurisdiction is easier than finding a competing business that has better policies.
Changing government policies is much easier than changing corporate policies. I can vote for my representatives in government; I can't vote for the heads of the corporations I patronize. And organizing enough people to influence a campaign or an election is far easier than organizing enough people to stage an effective boycott.
There is no reward, profit or other motivation to cause a government to be efficient. In fact, the opposite is true. [...] Private sector on the other hand is required by definition to be self-sufficient. They cannot acquire more resources without paying for it. They must trade one resource for another. In order to grow they must add value to the resources they already have (which can be argued a trade of effort, time or creativity) or become more efficient with what they already have.
An interesting theory, but it fails to explain why Medicare has so much less overhead (i.e. runs more efficiently) than private insurers.
Do you have auto insurance? Ever seen what happens to auto insurance when you've been in a few accidents?
A doctor who gets sued for malpractice has his insurance premiums skyrocket, if the company doesn't drop him entirely. Then he has to pass that on to his customers as well, unless he's driven out of business completely.
If being sued for malpractice (and losing) is really as unpreventable as the GP suggested, then perhaps we just need to prohibit insurers from jacking up premiums in the wake of these unpreventable events.
If it's not as unpreventable as he suggested, then isn't this the correct outcome?
Reduce malpractice risk while ensuring the victims are fairly compensated? How about capping the amount that they can receive for "emotional suffering", so that they can't stick, for instance, $300,000 pain-and-suffering onto a $2,000 cost-of-correcting-the-problem settlement?
Are you arguing that there is no amount of pain and suffering that justifies a $300,000 settlement, or only that it can't possibly result from an incident involving $2000 of actual damages?
Slashdot Mirror
And why would it be handy to be able to plug a USB stick into the iPhone? You can't DO anything with it. The OS doesn't support it.
Applications could be written to use it, and presumably if it had had a USB host connector all along, the OS would support it natively. But that would be a different type of port, and it's beside the point anyway. This is about plugging the iPod into other host devices, not using the iPod as a USB host.
So as I see it, this is a big huge non-issue, and if it were an issue, it'd be an issue chiefly cause of software reasons. The software is what really creates the lock-in. Not the non-standard connector.
Software creates some lock-in too, but don't ignore the accessory lock-in created by the non-standard, patented connector. An iPod docking alarm clock costs as much as a dozen apps.
As a side note, the dock connector is nicely skinny, which comes in handy if you're making really skinny stuff.
Heh. Hold that dock connector up to a Micro USB connector and see which one is skinnier.
The issue is that the iPhone, iPods etc. don't support doing anything useful with most of the stuff you could connect via USB anyway. You can't plug in a 500gig drive and use it. You can't plug in a keyboard or mouse and use them. Which means there's not a compelling reason to use USB, especially since the existing connector is better-shaped for docking anyway.
I really don't get why people bitch about this so much, therefore.
Well, it would be handy to be able to plug a USB memory stick into an iPhone, but the real win would come from using standard USB connectors to sync and charge the iPod.
People bitch because the iPod dock connector is proprietary and patented, not because it's technologically inferior. Since the iPod is the most popular MP3 player, most accessories have iPod dock connectors, and other players can't connect to them. That leads to lock-in, as mentioned upthread.
That is, they will learn, "The reason I am doing this is to get money," not, "The reason I am doing this is because science/art/music/literature/philosophy/dance/woodworking/programming/math/history/writing is fun."
But they don't think it's fun -- that's why they're unmotivated in the first place. What they'll learn is "The reason I am doing this is because other people make all the important decisions about my life."
Currently, we don't reward kids for doing schoolwork; we punish them for not doing it. Is that really the best way to get them interested in these subjects? Doesn't it make more sense to get them to associate studying with something positive?
I wonder why you think that wouldn't be suggested ("surely"), considering that's exactly what research shows. Extrinsic motivators de-motivate student interest in the subjects being taught.
Students who need to be paid in order to learn are, obviously, already unmotivated.
This is a plan for creating students who hate the subjects being taught.
Do you really think it's better to force students to do schoolwork for no visible benefit -- somehow that's going to make them love the subjects being taught? Do you see that working today?
Citation. Here's the relevant section:
Note "originally written" and the mention of translation/compatibility tools.
If Adobe wants to, they can make their "compiler" a language engine that rewrites a flash/flex app in objective C.
No, they can't. That's exactly what Apple is now prohibiting. It's not enough that your program is compiled from Objective C: it has to be Objective C that was typed in by human hands, not generated by a translator.
I disagree. What Apple is doing is more complex than is normal, but it also yields better results for platforms where battery and processing power are important limitations.
That remains to be seen. Multitasking on Android works pretty damn well, without limiting developers to a specific set of seven background operations that Steve thinks "ought to be enough for anybody".
AppleInsider claims it's due to the new multitasking features in iPhone OS 4.0. I don't know if I fully buy that
Don't believe it for a second. All you need to know is this: Apple is banning source translators. Even if there's a legitimate reason for iPhone 4.0's pseudo "multitasking" to require apps to be compiled from C/C++/ObjC, that still doesn't explain why some ObjC code is allowed and other ObjC code is prohibited (based solely on whether the code was typed in by a human or generated by a program).
I just got a Droid this week, and I got the 2.1 upgrade the same day I activated it. If your friends are still waiting, there are ways to download the update and install it manually.
Like MS demanding Win7 apps be written in a managed language (ie C#) or Android in Dalvik/Java. iPhone demands C/C++/ObjC. What's the big deal here?
First, I think you mean Windows Phone 7, not Windows 7.
Second, WinPhone7 and Android only "demand" that your compiled program conform to a certain virtual machine spec. You don't have to use their tools or write in their preferred languages; you can use any language that compiles to the right format. (And in fact, Android has a native development kit now, so you can write 99% of your app in any language that compiles to ARM!)
Third, Apple's demand goes even further than the demand you're falsely ascribing to MS and Google. They don't just demand that you have C/C++/ObjC code for your program -- they also demand that your program be originally written in one of those languages.
Let's take a trip down memory lane. In the early 80s, there were no direct C++ compilers: instead, there was something called cfront, which translated C++ code into C. It would be strange for an OS vendor to demand that applications be written in C, of course, because all that really matters is whether the compiled program can run on the hardware. But it would be batshit insane for an OS vendor to prohibit programs that were originally written in C++ and then translated to C, because even if there were some legitimate reason to require C code, it would apply to all C code. There would've been absolutely no technical justification for that ban, just like today there's no technical justification for banning programs translated from Flash to Objective-C.
The dock connector has audio and control signals which are used for use in external speaker systems and car docks for example. Also video signals for driving TVs. USB doesn't have those.
You can add them to USB, like HTC did for their mini-USB-compatible connector.
The language requirement by Apple is related to multitasking.
No, it isn't. Even if there were a sensible reason for iPhone 4.0's pseudo-"multitasking" to require code to be written in a certain language -- which there isn't -- this ban would still be unrelated to multitasking, because it bans translations. In other words, even if your code is written in Objective-C, Apple will still reject it if that Objective-C code was written by a translation program instead of a human being.
But you're ignoring the other RESULTS you'll accidentally succeed in achieving, viz. teaching the kid that remuneration is the only acceptable form of reward. [...] Personally, I'm interested in intelligent, creative kids - writers, poets, scientists, kids with real curiosity who want to do things because they love to do them, because the problem fascinates them, because they want to KNOW, goddamnit.
Well, surely you aren't suggesting that forcing kids to do schoolwork for no pay -- the status quo -- is somehow more likely to turn them into writers/poets/scientists than paying them to do schoolwork. So what's your alternative?
People do not pay me to improve myself.
On the other hand, people don't force you to improve yourself either. There are no police officers charged with making sure that you learn something about an assigned topic every day. You decide what to study and what to ignore, and if you feel like you know enough for now, you can decide not to study anything at all.
Seriously, if you have to pay someone to do well in school, its throwing money right down the drain.
I agree, but the problem is more fundamental. If we have to pay someone to do well in school, they shouldn't be there in the first place. Let them spend their time on something they are motivated to do. They'll learn whatever they need to know along the way, and the things they learn will actually be relevant to their lives.
Yeah, that doesn't solve the uploading/downloading issue, but how big are your PDFs anyway?
For a while, I was frequently referencing a handful of PDFs ranging from 10 to 70 MB.
See, I'd agree that those are all perfectly cromulent arguments in support of the ipad being a terrible book reader. For PDFs, where you're likely to be reading inside, at home or at work, for a shorter period of time, they just don't seem to matter much.
Some PDFs are books. I don't think there's much difference in requirements between reading a "book" and reading a 300 page PDF.
If they're not, then put them there. How is that harder than coping to an external device?
Firing up an FTP client, uploading the file, then typing in a URL is more work than dragging it to a USB device, and that only works if you already have a hosting account set up. Plus, if the file is large, you have to wait for it to upload from your PC and then wait again for it to download to the Pad.
I actually use the kindle myself for reading PDFs, and it is terrible. It's slow, has no color, no wlan, and if you want to view a whole page at once it is as expensive as the ipad. Internet only works in the US, too.
The iPad is also terrible, for reasons already stated: poor battery life, weight, and a screen that's unreadable in bright light. Outside of wifi range, internet only works on AT&T's overloaded network, only if you pay for it, and you have to pay hundreds extra just to have that option.
The very best that a VM runtime can do is infer that a class of access is impossible and thus exclude traps for it. This only works in extremely limited circumstances, and still requires code to be correct.
That's exactly what "managed code" means in this context: the VM spec and the JIT-time verifier prohibit the types of accesses that would need to be trapped.
For example, you can't dereference a pointer that might point to any arbitrary memory location, because the verifier won't let you cast an integer to a managed pointer; you can only get a managed pointer by taking the address of a variable. You can't dereference a pointer to a local variable in a stack frame that no longer exists, because the verifier won't let you return the pointer out of that frame, and won't let any other function store the pointer anywhere except in an even deeper stack frame. This is checked statically, before the code runs, and then doesn't need to be checked again. (Certain operations do need runtime checking, like object casts and array access.)
The circumstances in which it works aren't really all that limited: just look at all the programs that have been written for .NET and Java. As for requiring code to be correct, well, that's what the verifier is for.
If you're going for the multitasking aspect, then thats just silly. The iPhone/iPad hides the 'app exits if not in the foreground' nature of OS pretty much flawlessly unless you don't bother to write your app properly. Works pretty much identical to the way PalmOS used to work back in the day and results in far more battery life than would be the case otherwise.
Multitasking is about more than quickly switching from one app to another. For example, the iPhone/iPad can't play Pandora while you surf the web, or automatically silence your ringer when you move into a certain GPS region.
There aren't multiple user accounts because its not meant to be a shared device. Its a personal datapad, its meant to be used by one person. Apple wants you to buy one for each person that uses it.
Then perhaps they should have priced it accordingly.
Pulling PDFs to the device over the wireless is going to be easier than going through a usb stick in almost every situation.
Does it have SMB support? No? Well, you'd better hope the PDFs you're trying to read are in your email inbox or on a web site.
Display is going to be perfect and portability will be great. You are talking about the one area where this thing will be better than everything that has ever existed.
Perhaps you're forgetting the Kindle, which weighs half as much, runs for weeks instead of hours on a charge, and is readable in sunlight.
The iPad is something out of Star Trek or HHGTTG, the sort of thing nerds have been dreaming about for decades.
Yes, exactly... and just like so much other Hollywood technology, it only makes sense in fiction.
Take another example from Star Trek: the vertically mounted touch screen. Sounds great in theory, but when it was tried in the 80s, people realized that it's really, really tiring to use one for any length of time.
Or look at that other sci-fi staple, the video phone. They're all over TV and movies, a universal symbol of how we'll communicate in the future. In fact, they've existed in real life for decades, but almost no one uses them, because it turns out most people prefer audio-only conversations most of the time; they'd rather not have to put on pants to answer the phone, or give the impression that they're hiding something by turning the camera off. But those thoughts don't occur to them when they see a video phone in a movie.
A tablet computer is one of those things that looks cool on TV and screams "futuristic", but actually isn't very practical in real life.
It does less to prevent fraud, of course.
Private insurers are just as susceptible to fraud, so that can't explain it.
The proper comparison isn't to changing corporate policies; it's to dealing with *different businesses*. Which is easier. Much, MUCH easier than changing any given law.
No, that's not a proper comparison. Here are some proper comparisons:
changing laws <=> changing corporate policies
moving to a different state/country <=> dealing with a different business
Changing laws is easier than changing corporate policies, and in many cases, moving to another jurisdiction is easier than finding a competing business that has better policies.
Changing government policies is much easier than changing corporate policies. I can vote for my representatives in government; I can't vote for the heads of the corporations I patronize. And organizing enough people to influence a campaign or an election is far easier than organizing enough people to stage an effective boycott.
There is no reward, profit or other motivation to cause a government to be efficient. In fact, the opposite is true. [...]
Private sector on the other hand is required by definition to be self-sufficient. They cannot acquire more resources without paying for it. They must trade one resource for another. In order to grow they must add value to the resources they already have (which can be argued a trade of effort, time or creativity) or become more efficient with what they already have.
An interesting theory, but it fails to explain why Medicare has so much less overhead (i.e. runs more efficiently) than private insurers.
Do you have auto insurance? Ever seen what happens to auto insurance when you've been in a few accidents?
A doctor who gets sued for malpractice has his insurance premiums skyrocket, if the company doesn't drop him entirely. Then he has to pass that on to his customers as well, unless he's driven out of business completely.
If being sued for malpractice (and losing) is really as unpreventable as the GP suggested, then perhaps we just need to prohibit insurers from jacking up premiums in the wake of these unpreventable events.
If it's not as unpreventable as he suggested, then isn't this the correct outcome?
Reduce malpractice risk while ensuring the victims are fairly compensated? How about capping the amount that they can receive for "emotional suffering", so that they can't stick, for instance, $300,000 pain-and-suffering onto a $2,000 cost-of-correcting-the-problem settlement?
Are you arguing that there is no amount of pain and suffering that justifies a $300,000 settlement, or only that it can't possibly result from an incident involving $2000 of actual damages?