Back in the 80's a lot of products were marked "Made in China" but were actually made in Taiwan or Hong Kong. All three can be considered "China" depending on your definition. Daewoo is from Korea, and their products are marked "Made in Korea", but we all know that "Korea" in this sense does not include "North Korea".
Many people refer to the main island of Great Britain as "England" when "England" is just the southern portion, not to be confused with Cornwall, Wales, or Scotland. But in terms of ethnicity, culture, language, and nationality, Taiwan is more "China" than Scotland will ever be "England". The major defining difference between ROC (Taiwan) and PRC (China) is political, as in who literally governs.
...So yes, some low skilled workers lost their jobs and were replaced by fewer better paid, more highly skilled workers, while the remainder ended up working at Walmart, often forced to match their peon's wage with government entitlement programs such as food stamps, TANF, and medicaid just to make ends meet.
Not to mention that China has been scouring the world cornering the market for sources of raw materials, such as minerals, timber, crops, oil, etc - especially in Africa and South America. They even have rigs drilling oil in the Gulf of Mexico. Combined with the wealth of untapped resources within their own borders, China is poised to set the base price for the entire world's economy for the foreseeable future, with or without mass labor.
But at least the US controls the resources occupied in Iraq and Afghanistan - oh, wait, hold on...Ok, maybe not.
But at least the US has a stable economy built on medical and education spending that far exceeds inflation. And unlike socialist Europe, American citizens have to pay for their own needs so they are motivated to work two or three low wage jobs instead of just one. That's got to give us an edge in the international marketplace, right?
It has been shown over and over again, for the past 200 years, that there is no such thing as a "robot". There is always a person inside controlling the movements. This is just a ploy by Foxconn to appease human rights advocates.
Paid cable TV was meant originally to be a premium paid service free of ads. Look what happened. I'm just surprised that it took M$ this long to catch on.
Given that the patient isn't spending £2,000.00 to each physician involved in each procedure like in the US, he should have enough money to cover the cost. The same could happen to an American just as easily, except that it wouldn't even count toward an American's $10k deductible.
Part of the problem is that most medical expenses are pulled out of someone's arse. If you show up at a hospital ER with a head injury, the hospital could call in their trauma physicians ($3,000.00 fee), and pull a trauma kit ($5,000.00 fee). The fact that the trauma physicians might already be working at the hospital and not called in from their personal time (like interrupting a wedding, or other special event) doesn't matter. And medical kits, such as "trauma kits" or "surgery kits" are just convenient prepackaged collections of tools, equipment, medicines, bandages, and other consumables that could ever conceivably be used for a variety of scenarios. A kit might be opened and items set out onto a tray in anticipation that they may be needed. Most items are not needed, and in many cases the "kit" didn't even need opening. But it is a great way to add costs to the patient or their insurance companies. Some hospitals ship opened kits to hospitals in 3rd world countries for a charitable tax write-off. Others resell them in bulk to re-packagers. The contents are individually wrapped in plastic (often kits within sets of kits), so unused items are not at any risk of contamination. Some items within kits have shorter shelf lives than others, so hospitals are motivated to "open" kits as often as justifiable to make sure a kit doesn't sit too long unused.
There's no law or regulation that says it has to be done this way, but it is profitable for physicians groups and hospitals. Even the non-profits get in on it since they can barely afford to care for the uninsured and it is a way to redistribute wealth from paying patients to those who cannot.
Wrong analogy. The car is the human body, but there is nothing special about the patient's body that is causing the document retrieval fee to be £2,000.00. For your car analogy, it's more like "well, we took a look inside your engine to see what was wrong, and our technician Ted didn't write down what we found. But Ted quit just before lunch and won't tell us what we need to know unless you pay us an additional $100 to get Ted to talk. We could perform the diagnostics all over again, but that would cost $150. How do you wish to proceed?"
Naturally, if I came across this situation in real life, I would go straight to Slashdot!
We at AT&T cannot accept this requirement. Only by not-training our customer care representatives can we ensure the profits that will meet the expectations of our shareholders. By training our customer care representatives we can no longer avoid responsibility and pretend that we didn't know what was going on. Consumers will no doubt mercilessly take advantage of this and pay only the amount(s) they originally agreed to. This penalty, to make us train our customer care representatives, is particularly harsh, and will make us uncompetitive. It is bad for business, bad for the economy, and bad for America.
The law also requires online retailers doing more than $100,000 a year in online sales in Colorado to file with the state’s Department of Revenue each year a list of all online Colorado customers and the dollar value and category of their online purchases.
Every online retailer who sells to a Colorado purchaser and doesn’t collect sales tax will be required to put a notice in the customer’s invoice that says, "You are obligated to pay sales tax in the state of Colorado for this purchase". The requirement to submit a list of customers and purchasing data each year is intended to support the state’s ability to check compliance with the law.
So, if you don't know which form to use, better find out quick. Sounds like a which hunt is brewing.
There's probably a remotely installed firmware update to fix that limitation. In the world of electronics and software it is more common for "limitations" to be intentionally designed rather than being physical limitations. For example, even ten years ago I worked for a company that built GPS receiver circuit boards. Customers could pay more money and get more features, but they were shipped the exact same board as the basic model. The only difference was that jumpers were installed for each of the additional "options" to activate sections of the circuit board. If customers only knew they could save hundreds of dollars by jumpering their own boards. And that's a hardware example. Adjustments to firmware are even easier, limited more by the ingenuity of the developer than physical limitations.
I've already crossed Xbox off my list a long time ago since you need to pay monthly to play multiplayer games. This new feature just scrubbed them off my list permanently. But yet there are still going to be plenty of suckers. I just hope that Xbox doesn't come up with something like Facebook, a totally useless application to me, but something that all my friends and family insist that I setup to "connect" with them. Yes, I have a FB account, but I've never posted status to my wall or done anything else with it. But since my friends and family see me on their "friend" list it makes them all warm and fuzzy. Sometimes you just have to go along with stupid to keep your friends happy.
I've heard that the XBox team is working on reusable eyelid tape, and the system will stay on commercials until everyone in the room has viewed the mandatory allotment.
If murder is a capital expense, and if we as a society forbid "cruel and unusual punishment" then how do you apply an additional penalty? You can't execute a criminal more than once, nor can a criminal serve more than one life sentence.
This does present a problem though. Suppose a hostage scenario goes wrong and the hostage taker kills just one of the hostages. Now there is no longer any incentive for the hostage taker to spare any lives, other than his own driving moral and ethical principles. Generally speaking, after one murder the SWAT team goes in, whether or not they'll have any chance to save any hostages.
Fundamentally the difference between murder and genocide is the practical management of resources to prevent, deter or bring an end to such crimes in progress.
In many states, companies that collect sales tax are allowed to keep a portion of the tax collected. In fact, they HAVE to keep a portion of the tax collected to remain compliant with most state laws. It's just a fraction, but it is meant to "reimburse" the company for going through the trouble to collect the tax in the first place. If tax is collected when it wasn't due, then the retailer is supposed to refund that money back to the customer. If you buy from a retailer that doesn't charge you sales tax then it is presumed to be your duty to files a state sales tax return to "voluntarily" pay the sales tax yourself directly. Technically you could save a fraction of a fraction by setting up yourself or your company as "self pay" for sales tax. You'll typically need a certificate and a statement, then you can buy tax free and file your own state sales tax return. I've known a few companies that do this, as it can make sense both to save a small portion (the amount the retailer would get to keep) and to keep your company compliant when so many retailers do not collect sales tax or charge the right amount. Staying on top of what percent tax is for each and every zip code and for each and every type of product for each and every state and territory can get even big online retailers bogged down.
Our society has accepted that a fifth-grade reading level should be the defacto standard for most published works. Consumer oriented publications such as newspapers and magazines tend to be written to be easily read by someone with a fifth grade education. Such a level should be appropriate for any contract intended for a general audience. If you write for a specific audience you can use vocabulary that they will (or should) recognize, and sometimes it is more eloquent and precise to use a particular word that is not commonly known or used by the general public. In a few rare cases it is even appropriate to use a word that your audience will have to look up after your speech, to give you enough time to exit the room before your audience realizes you just insulted them all.
That said, below is an excerpt from Bacon's Of Marriage AND SINGLE LIFE:
Certainly wife and children are a kind of discipline of humanity; and single men, though they may be many times more charitable, because their means are less exhaust, yet, on the other side, they are more cruel and hardhearted (good to make severe inquisitors), because their tenderness is not so oft called upon. Grave natures, led by custom, and therefore constant, are commonly loving husbands, as was said of Ulysses, vetulam suam praetulit immortalitati. Chaste women are often proud and froward, as presuming upon the merit of their chastity. It is one of the best bonds, both of chastity and obedience, in the wife, if she think her husband wise; which she will never do, if she find him jealous.
Most would agree that it is not that hard to read and understand this passage. However, the Latin text in bold is presumed to be understood, but most modern readers wouldn't know what this means without access to Google search. About a century ago you couldn't call yourself educated unless you could understand Latin and often Greek as well. It is one reason why lawyers used to have much more Latin terminology in statutes and contracts. There are still some who say that we are less educated than our predecessors because of our deficiencies in Latin and Greek, but I would argue that there is more knowledge to master today than in times gone by, and Bacon would likely be just as bewildered by our use of texting abbreviations, emoticons [ie,:P,;), etc.], and casual HTML markup.
Just a few hundred years ago, it was not uncommon for a document to break off into several lines of pure Latin, and then jump back into English again without any explanation. The abstruseness of legalese is deliberate for excluding the legally untrained and to justify high fees. Legalese is characterized by long sentences, many modifying clauses, complex vocabulary, high abstraction, and insensitivity to the layman's need to understand the document's gist.
Here's one of my favorite jokes about legalese, but some real life examples are even worse: When a layperson wants to give you an orange, he or she merely says, “I give you this orange.”
But when a lawyer does it, the words he or she uses are:–
“Know all persons by these present that I hereby give, grant, release, convey, transfer and quitclaim all my right, title, interest, benefit and use whatsoever in, or and concerning this chattel, otherwise known as an orange, or citrus aurantium, together with all the appurtenances thereto of skin, pulp, pip, rind, seeds and juice to have and to hold the said orange, for his own use and behoof, to himself and his heirs, in fee simple forever, free from all liens, encumbrances, easements, limitations, restraints or conditions whatsoever, any and all prior deeds, transfer, or other documents whatsoever, now or anywhere made to the contrary notwithstanding, with full power to bite, cut, suck or otherwise eat the said orange or to give away the same, with or without its skin, pulp, pip, rind, seeds or juice.”
Part of the problem is that courts have long ago set precedent that the precise wording in a contract can be used against a party even if there is clearly no rational reason for such a party to believe that the wording of the contract could be used in such a matter. An example is the "negative pregnant", such as denying that you owe $50 to a creditor. Upon such a denial it was not uncommon just 150 years ago for an opposing party to win a judgment for $49, since you only denied owing $50 (and you didn't deny owing any other amount). It is bullsh*t like this why we have to add phrases like "do not owe $50, or any other amount".
The odds are that both parties to a transaction might be better off absent contract wording, like a privacy policy, since such precisely written documents can be misconstrued to mean something very different from what the author intended or what any layperson would interpret.
For example, my privacy policy may state that I won't divulge your info to third parties, but then I might be culpable if you lose a lawsuit because of evidence provided to an attorney in compliance with a court order. If you don't mention the possibility of sharing info with law enforcement or by court order in your statement you may be liable, but not if you had no statement at all. Of course, my favorite clause to slip into any contract is
"You agree to indemnify, hold harmless and defend us, at your expense, against any and all third-party claims, actions, proceedings, and suits brought against us".
You see it everywhere and it kind of ties the hands of anyone agreeing to your contract.
I think davester was implying that we should as a society tackle the threats that pose a risk to all of us rather than convince people to stop smoking or drive safer, as implied by slashping. Your scenario of herd thinning by bankers and managers is actually more like what is happening now with our energy and environmental policies. Today's need for jobs and affordable energy trumps tomorrows need for jobs, affordable energy, or a safe planet that can actually sustain us. And in the end the bankers and managers, while possibly being able to horde more for the short term, won't have the physical skills, abilities, or resources of more sustainable groups such as the Amish or subsistence farmers in 3rd world countries, so they may eventually regret the decisions and folly of their youth.
As for existential threats that could take out entire nations, I suggest we try to calculate where the asteroid will land before spending billions to deflect it. Taking "personal responsibility" is a popular concept these days, so maybe we should let the most affected nations pick up the tab to rescue them, unless there is a more long lasting benefit to helping them. For example, I might ask Germany to contribute a major share of the cost to rescue them from a potential collision. If the asteroid was going to wipe out North Korea, I might just not say anything and hope any remaining Inmin Gun allow outsiders to assist survivors. If Haiti was the target I would just move the asteroid without asking anything in return - the poor Haitians have always had it bad and always suffer through the worst earthquakes, hurricanes, and other disasters.
Whether armed with anti-terrorist rocks or not, passengers just aren't going to sit in their seats and hope the terrorists let them go when the plane lands like in the 70's and 80's. Nowadays if a passenger is just a little unruly, fellow passengers will tackle and pin him down for the rest of the flight. It's going to take a lot more than box cutters and nail files to take over a plane in the post-911 era. This whole new passenger mindset has more to do with preventing hijackings than TSA regulations and security screenings. Airport security was already effective at keeping bombs off planes ever since the Pan-Am bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1989.
It's indicative of the of legal systems not keeping up with technology, as well as the American trend toward hyper-legalization.
Yes on your second conclusion, but no on your first. The lawyers drafting our legislation are looking after the best interests of their profession. Should they be voted out for creating extreme hardships for their own constituents, or if they hit term limits, they have to return to private practice. They tend to have family in the same profession, as well as dozens of legal professionals they owe favors to, such as for endorsing or funding their campaigns. Your laws are written to be as convoluted, confusing, and open to interpretation as possible, except for corporate-written legislation that will shore up any loopholes that could be exploited by upstarts to compete against the established powers or that make consumers feel protected, like provisions for punitive damages or class-action suits, knowing full well that their terms of agreement will have consumers surrender such rights on page 27 in 2-pt font, just under the "binding arbitration" clause.
The big law firms are reaping in record earnings from exploiting such opportunities unique to technology. They are keeping up with technology, just not in a way that benefits you and me.
Slashdot Mirror
Back in the 80's a lot of products were marked "Made in China" but were actually made in Taiwan or Hong Kong. All three can be considered "China" depending on your definition. Daewoo is from Korea, and their products are marked "Made in Korea", but we all know that "Korea" in this sense does not include "North Korea".
Many people refer to the main island of Great Britain as "England" when "England" is just the southern portion, not to be confused with Cornwall, Wales, or Scotland. But in terms of ethnicity, culture, language, and nationality, Taiwan is more "China" than Scotland will ever be "England". The major defining difference between ROC (Taiwan) and PRC (China) is political, as in who literally governs.
...So yes, some low skilled workers lost their jobs and were replaced by fewer better paid, more highly skilled workers, while the remainder ended up working at Walmart, often forced to match their peon's wage with government entitlement programs such as food stamps, TANF, and medicaid just to make ends meet.
There. Fixed that for ya.
Can't you let the robots work for at least one day without exploiting them?
Not to mention that China has been scouring the world cornering the market for sources of raw materials, such as minerals, timber, crops, oil, etc - especially in Africa and South America. They even have rigs drilling oil in the Gulf of Mexico. Combined with the wealth of untapped resources within their own borders, China is poised to set the base price for the entire world's economy for the foreseeable future, with or without mass labor.
But at least the US controls the resources occupied in Iraq and Afghanistan - oh, wait, hold on...Ok, maybe not.
But at least the US has a stable economy built on medical and education spending that far exceeds inflation. And unlike socialist Europe, American citizens have to pay for their own needs so they are motivated to work two or three low wage jobs instead of just one. That's got to give us an edge in the international marketplace, right?
It has been shown over and over again, for the past 200 years, that there is no such thing as a "robot". There is always a person inside controlling the movements. This is just a ploy by Foxconn to appease human rights advocates.
Paid cable TV was meant originally to be a premium paid service free of ads. Look what happened. I'm just surprised that it took M$ this long to catch on.
Given that the patient isn't spending £2,000.00 to each physician involved in each procedure like in the US, he should have enough money to cover the cost. The same could happen to an American just as easily, except that it wouldn't even count toward an American's $10k deductible.
Part of the problem is that most medical expenses are pulled out of someone's arse. If you show up at a hospital ER with a head injury, the hospital could call in their trauma physicians ($3,000.00 fee), and pull a trauma kit ($5,000.00 fee). The fact that the trauma physicians might already be working at the hospital and not called in from their personal time (like interrupting a wedding, or other special event) doesn't matter. And medical kits, such as "trauma kits" or "surgery kits" are just convenient prepackaged collections of tools, equipment, medicines, bandages, and other consumables that could ever conceivably be used for a variety of scenarios. A kit might be opened and items set out onto a tray in anticipation that they may be needed. Most items are not needed, and in many cases the "kit" didn't even need opening. But it is a great way to add costs to the patient or their insurance companies. Some hospitals ship opened kits to hospitals in 3rd world countries for a charitable tax write-off. Others resell them in bulk to re-packagers. The contents are individually wrapped in plastic (often kits within sets of kits), so unused items are not at any risk of contamination. Some items within kits have shorter shelf lives than others, so hospitals are motivated to "open" kits as often as justifiable to make sure a kit doesn't sit too long unused.
There's no law or regulation that says it has to be done this way, but it is profitable for physicians groups and hospitals. Even the non-profits get in on it since they can barely afford to care for the uninsured and it is a way to redistribute wealth from paying patients to those who cannot.
Wrong analogy. The car is the human body, but there is nothing special about the patient's body that is causing the document retrieval fee to be £2,000.00. For your car analogy, it's more like "well, we took a look inside your engine to see what was wrong, and our technician Ted didn't write down what we found. But Ted quit just before lunch and won't tell us what we need to know unless you pay us an additional $100 to get Ted to talk. We could perform the diagnostics all over again, but that would cost $150. How do you wish to proceed?"
Naturally, if I came across this situation in real life, I would go straight to Slashdot!
training of customer care representatives
We at AT&T cannot accept this requirement. Only by not-training our customer care representatives can we ensure the profits that will meet the expectations of our shareholders. By training our customer care representatives we can no longer avoid responsibility and pretend that we didn't know what was going on. Consumers will no doubt mercilessly take advantage of this and pay only the amount(s) they originally agreed to. This penalty, to make us train our customer care representatives, is particularly harsh, and will make us uncompetitive. It is bad for business, bad for the economy, and bad for America.
And the state doesn't ever check anybody's compliance who isn't operating a business.
Here's if you live in Colorado:
http://www.internetretailer.com/2010/03/03/colorado-to-online-shoppers-pay-your-own-sales-tax
The law also requires online retailers doing more than $100,000 a year in online sales in Colorado to file with the state’s Department of Revenue each year a list of all online Colorado customers and the dollar value and category of their online purchases.
Every online retailer who sells to a Colorado purchaser and doesn’t collect sales tax will be required to put a notice in the customer’s invoice that says, "You are obligated to pay sales tax in the state of Colorado for this purchase". The requirement to submit a list of customers and purchasing data each year is intended to support the state’s ability to check compliance with the law.
So, if you don't know which form to use, better find out quick. Sounds like a which hunt is brewing.
There's probably a remotely installed firmware update to fix that limitation. In the world of electronics and software it is more common for "limitations" to be intentionally designed rather than being physical limitations. For example, even ten years ago I worked for a company that built GPS receiver circuit boards. Customers could pay more money and get more features, but they were shipped the exact same board as the basic model. The only difference was that jumpers were installed for each of the additional "options" to activate sections of the circuit board. If customers only knew they could save hundreds of dollars by jumpering their own boards. And that's a hardware example. Adjustments to firmware are even easier, limited more by the ingenuity of the developer than physical limitations.
I've already crossed Xbox off my list a long time ago since you need to pay monthly to play multiplayer games. This new feature just scrubbed them off my list permanently. But yet there are still going to be plenty of suckers. I just hope that Xbox doesn't come up with something like Facebook, a totally useless application to me, but something that all my friends and family insist that I setup to "connect" with them. Yes, I have a FB account, but I've never posted status to my wall or done anything else with it. But since my friends and family see me on their "friend" list it makes them all warm and fuzzy. Sometimes you just have to go along with stupid to keep your friends happy.
I've heard that the XBox team is working on reusable eyelid tape, and the system will stay on commercials until everyone in the room has viewed the mandatory allotment.
If murder is a capital expense, and if we as a society forbid "cruel and unusual punishment" then how do you apply an additional penalty? You can't execute a criminal more than once, nor can a criminal serve more than one life sentence.
This does present a problem though. Suppose a hostage scenario goes wrong and the hostage taker kills just one of the hostages. Now there is no longer any incentive for the hostage taker to spare any lives, other than his own driving moral and ethical principles. Generally speaking, after one murder the SWAT team goes in, whether or not they'll have any chance to save any hostages.
Fundamentally the difference between murder and genocide is the practical management of resources to prevent, deter or bring an end to such crimes in progress.
Just make sure you don't grow your own grain to feed your own chickens
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=roscoe%20filburn&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FWickard_v._Filburn&ei=lzSXUM__MMSW2AWLkIHIAw&usg=AFQjCNFN0flFjCoNo0rtuaegJoAYE5VStQ
Or use vegetable oil to power your diesel engine without paying your fuel tax
http://herald-review.com/news/local/article_5dae2327-a3cb-5bba-ac4c-14dac3b83327.html
In many states, companies that collect sales tax are allowed to keep a portion of the tax collected. In fact, they HAVE to keep a portion of the tax collected to remain compliant with most state laws. It's just a fraction, but it is meant to "reimburse" the company for going through the trouble to collect the tax in the first place. If tax is collected when it wasn't due, then the retailer is supposed to refund that money back to the customer. If you buy from a retailer that doesn't charge you sales tax then it is presumed to be your duty to files a state sales tax return to "voluntarily" pay the sales tax yourself directly. Technically you could save a fraction of a fraction by setting up yourself or your company as "self pay" for sales tax. You'll typically need a certificate and a statement, then you can buy tax free and file your own state sales tax return. I've known a few companies that do this, as it can make sense both to save a small portion (the amount the retailer would get to keep) and to keep your company compliant when so many retailers do not collect sales tax or charge the right amount. Staying on top of what percent tax is for each and every zip code and for each and every type of product for each and every state and territory can get even big online retailers bogged down.
Our society has accepted that a fifth-grade reading level should be the defacto standard for most published works. Consumer oriented publications such as newspapers and magazines tend to be written to be easily read by someone with a fifth grade education. Such a level should be appropriate for any contract intended for a general audience. If you write for a specific audience you can use vocabulary that they will (or should) recognize, and sometimes it is more eloquent and precise to use a particular word that is not commonly known or used by the general public. In a few rare cases it is even appropriate to use a word that your audience will have to look up after your speech, to give you enough time to exit the room before your audience realizes you just insulted them all.
That said, below is an excerpt from Bacon's Of Marriage AND SINGLE LIFE:
Certainly wife and children are a kind of discipline of humanity; and single men, though they may be many times more charitable, because their means are less exhaust, yet, on the other side, they are more cruel and hardhearted (good to make severe inquisitors), because their tenderness is not so oft called upon. Grave natures, led by custom, and therefore constant, are commonly loving husbands, as was said of Ulysses, vetulam suam praetulit immortalitati. Chaste women are often proud and froward, as presuming upon the merit of their chastity. It is one of the best bonds, both of chastity and obedience, in the wife, if she think her husband wise; which she will never do, if she find him jealous.
Most would agree that it is not that hard to read and understand this passage. However, the Latin text in bold is presumed to be understood, but most modern readers wouldn't know what this means without access to Google search. About a century ago you couldn't call yourself educated unless you could understand Latin and often Greek as well. It is one reason why lawyers used to have much more Latin terminology in statutes and contracts. There are still some who say that we are less educated than our predecessors because of our deficiencies in Latin and Greek, but I would argue that there is more knowledge to master today than in times gone by, and Bacon would likely be just as bewildered by our use of texting abbreviations, emoticons [ie, :P, ;), etc.], and casual HTML markup.
Just a few hundred years ago, it was not uncommon for a document to break off into several lines of pure Latin, and then jump back into English again without any explanation. The abstruseness of legalese is deliberate for excluding the legally untrained and to justify high fees. Legalese is characterized by long sentences, many modifying clauses, complex vocabulary, high abstraction, and insensitivity to the layman's need to understand the document's gist.
Here's one of my favorite jokes about legalese, but some real life examples are even worse:
When a layperson wants to give you an orange, he or she merely says, “I give you this orange.”
But when a lawyer does it, the words he or she uses are:–
“Know all persons by these present that I hereby give, grant, release, convey, transfer and quitclaim all my right, title, interest, benefit and use whatsoever in, or and concerning this chattel, otherwise known as an orange, or citrus aurantium, together with all the appurtenances thereto of skin, pulp, pip, rind, seeds and juice to have and to hold the said orange, for his own use and behoof, to himself and his heirs, in fee simple forever, free from all liens, encumbrances, easements, limitations, restraints or conditions whatsoever, any and all prior deeds, transfer, or other documents whatsoever, now or anywhere made to the contrary notwithstanding, with full power to bite, cut, suck or otherwise eat the said orange or to give away the same, with or without its skin, pulp, pip, rind, seeds or juice.”
Part of the problem is that courts have long ago set precedent that the precise wording in a contract can be used against a party even if there is clearly no rational reason for such a party to believe that the wording of the contract could be used in such a matter. An example is the "negative pregnant", such as denying that you owe $50 to a creditor. Upon such a denial it was not uncommon just 150 years ago for an opposing party to win a judgment for $49, since you only denied owing $50 (and you didn't deny owing any other amount). It is bullsh*t like this why we have to add phrases like "do not owe $50, or any other amount".
The odds are that both parties to a transaction might be better off absent contract wording, like a privacy policy, since such precisely written documents can be misconstrued to mean something very different from what the author intended or what any layperson would interpret.
For example, my privacy policy may state that I won't divulge your info to third parties, but then I might be culpable if you lose a lawsuit because of evidence provided to an attorney in compliance with a court order. If you don't mention the possibility of sharing info with law enforcement or by court order in your statement you may be liable, but not if you had no statement at all. Of course, my favorite clause to slip into any contract is
"You agree to indemnify, hold harmless and defend us, at your expense, against any and all third-party claims, actions, proceedings, and suits brought against us".
You see it everywhere and it kind of ties the hands of anyone agreeing to your contract.
I think davester was implying that we should as a society tackle the threats that pose a risk to all of us rather than convince people to stop smoking or drive safer, as implied by slashping. Your scenario of herd thinning by bankers and managers is actually more like what is happening now with our energy and environmental policies. Today's need for jobs and affordable energy trumps tomorrows need for jobs, affordable energy, or a safe planet that can actually sustain us. And in the end the bankers and managers, while possibly being able to horde more for the short term, won't have the physical skills, abilities, or resources of more sustainable groups such as the Amish or subsistence farmers in 3rd world countries, so they may eventually regret the decisions and folly of their youth.
As for existential threats that could take out entire nations, I suggest we try to calculate where the asteroid will land before spending billions to deflect it. Taking "personal responsibility" is a popular concept these days, so maybe we should let the most affected nations pick up the tab to rescue them, unless there is a more long lasting benefit to helping them. For example, I might ask Germany to contribute a major share of the cost to rescue them from a potential collision. If the asteroid was going to wipe out North Korea, I might just not say anything and hope any remaining Inmin Gun allow outsiders to assist survivors. If Haiti was the target I would just move the asteroid without asking anything in return - the poor Haitians have always had it bad and always suffer through the worst earthquakes, hurricanes, and other disasters.
A researcher once tried to test me. I ate his shit with some fava beans and a nice gut bacteria cocktail... (slurpslurp)
OK, the Republicans warned me about Obamacare, but seriously?
A new way to make a toast to someone's health: "Eat Shit!"
I don't disagree with your position, but your first argument doesn't address the rights of citizens living and working in "ground targets".
Whether armed with anti-terrorist rocks or not, passengers just aren't going to sit in their seats and hope the terrorists let them go when the plane lands like in the 70's and 80's. Nowadays if a passenger is just a little unruly, fellow passengers will tackle and pin him down for the rest of the flight. It's going to take a lot more than box cutters and nail files to take over a plane in the post-911 era. This whole new passenger mindset has more to do with preventing hijackings than TSA regulations and security screenings. Airport security was already effective at keeping bombs off planes ever since the Pan-Am bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1989.
It's indicative of the of legal systems not keeping up with technology, as well as the American trend toward hyper-legalization.
Yes on your second conclusion, but no on your first. The lawyers drafting our legislation are looking after the best interests of their profession. Should they be voted out for creating extreme hardships for their own constituents, or if they hit term limits, they have to return to private practice. They tend to have family in the same profession, as well as dozens of legal professionals they owe favors to, such as for endorsing or funding their campaigns. Your laws are written to be as convoluted, confusing, and open to interpretation as possible, except for corporate-written legislation that will shore up any loopholes that could be exploited by upstarts to compete against the established powers or that make consumers feel protected, like provisions for punitive damages or class-action suits, knowing full well that their terms of agreement will have consumers surrender such rights on page 27 in 2-pt font, just under the "binding arbitration" clause.
The big law firms are reaping in record earnings from exploiting such opportunities unique to technology. They are keeping up with technology, just not in a way that benefits you and me.