Darren New wrote:
> Jim Holsenback wrote:
>> 1-123-456-7890 
> 
> One of the investors at my current company has a cell phone number of 
> 987-654-3210. Which I thought was pretty cool.

	987 doesn't correspond to a known code. I take it you meant that's what 
caller ID shows?

-- 
Complaints? Write them here legibly [] <-


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>     987 doesn't correspond to a known code. I take it you meant that's 
> what caller ID shows?

I might have been confused about that. Maybe the area code wasn't part 
of the pattern, and he just had XXX-7654321 or some such. In any case, 
it was pretty cute. A good variation on getting a number that ends in 
zeros.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:53:43 +0100, Jim Henderson  
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:

> On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 10:37:47 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:
>
>>> Yeah.  It is a "society becoming lazy" thing in my mind.
>>
>> But what's the cause, is it bottom-up or top-down (or neither or both).
>> Personally I think it's top-down - you can't perform this 2 minute job
>> without filling in H&S forms 11b, 121c, and 2d and then submiting them
>> for processing; if you just do the damn thing you will be reprimanded if
>> anyone finds out because if anything happens who's held liable
>> dum-dum-duh!
>
> I think it's a little of both - I think a big part of the problem is that
> nobody is responsible for their own actions any more.  If I, say, stick a
> screwdriver in my eye, it's not my fault - it's the fault of the
> manufacturer of the tool for not including a warning that says "WARNING:
> Screwdrivers have pointy bits; do not stick them in your eye, or you are
> likely to be injured!".

I think they just cover that with "Do not use this item for any purpose  
other than for which it is designed to be used" ;-)

> So we have to have all these forms and whatnot
> that are used to disclaim responsibility.

But who or what is driving that, oh wait it's partially this \/ guy isn't  
it...

> I was reading a story the other day (have to see if it's online
> somewhere) about a guy who fell off a ladder in spite of having taken
> "ladder training" that explained that there were ways in which it was
> inappropriate to use the ladder.  He was standing on the very top
> (against the training) and was only found to be 25% at fault in the
> accident.  The result is that he'll collect something like £37,500 on his
> claim of £50,000.
>
> Because he fell off a *ladder* that *he* was using improperly, and he'd
> been trained was improper use (and he even admitted he knew he was using
> it wrong).

Read about a similar (if not this) case, my dad was "Well what was he  
doing up a ladder that didn't have non-slip points and was unsupported at  
the base by a colleague?" yeah he'd just been on a H&S course. I think in  
this case the guy argued that he'd pointed out the faults, but was told to  
do the job anyway. Heh if he'd refused and got fired I bet he'd get less  
compensation then for being a loyal idiot.

>>> Yep, that is the biggest problem.  There have been stories about kids
>>> being expelled from school for having prescription medications because
>>> the ZT policy of the school is "no drugs".
>>
>> Except from the teachers point of view in this case what's to stop a
>> student putting drugs in a medication container, how could they tell the
>> difference? Easier (there's that word again) just to ban the lot.
>
> Except that the student actually *needs* the medication in order to
> *live*.  I'm not talking something like being able to tell aspirin from
> cocaine

Yeah but I bet ZT has fallen on that too.

> - but things like insulin for diabetic students.  Apparently
> they're supposed to get insulin injections without using a syringe
> because the teachers can't tell the difference between a diabetic student
> taking necessary medication and a heroin junkie shooting up in the
> hallway.

Easy, if the person shooting up rolls their eyes back into their head and  
gains a big grin on their faces I don't think it's insulin.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:54:20 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:

>> the manufacturer of the tool for not including a warning that says
>> "WARNING: Screwdrivers have pointy bits; do not stick them in your eye,
>> or you are likely to be injured!".
> 
> I think they just cover that with "Do not use this item for any purpose
> other than for which it is designed to be used" ;-)

Oh, I don't know that that's sufficient.  At least here in the US, it 
still has to be somebody's *fault*.

>> So we have to have all these forms and whatnot that are used to
>> disclaim responsibility.
> 
> But who or what is driving that, oh wait it's partially this \/ guy
> isn't it...

Yep.  But it's still someone else's fault.

>> Because he fell off a *ladder* that *he* was using improperly, and he'd
>> been trained was improper use (and he even admitted he knew he was
>> using it wrong).
> 
> Read about a similar (if not this) case, my dad was "Well what was he
> doing up a ladder that didn't have non-slip points and was unsupported
> at the base by a colleague?" yeah he'd just been on a H&S course. I
> think in this case the guy argued that he'd pointed out the faults, but
> was told to do the job anyway. Heh if he'd refused and got fired I bet
> he'd get less compensation then for being a loyal idiot.

Possibly, it's hard to summarise a complex story in about 6 lines of 
text. :-)

>> Except that the student actually *needs* the medication in order to
>> *live*.  I'm not talking something like being able to tell aspirin from
>> cocaine
> 
> Yeah but I bet ZT has fallen on that too.

I'm almost sure it has.

>> - but things like insulin for diabetic students.  Apparently they're
>> supposed to get insulin injections without using a syringe because the
>> teachers can't tell the difference between a diabetic student taking
>> necessary medication and a heroin junkie shooting up in the hallway.
> 
> Easy, if the person shooting up rolls their eyes back into their head
> and gains a big grin on their faces I don't think it's insulin.

Yeah, but that requires thinking on the part of the school 
administration, and we can't have *that* going on in our schools....

But there's also (in some schools) a double-standard.  Students have ZT 
applied to them, but let a staffer do something that is a *fireable* 
offense and those same non-thinking administration people are willing to 
overlook it.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Wed, 30 Jul 2008 21:52:36 +0100, Jim Henderson  
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:

> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:54:20 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:
>
>>> the manufacturer of the tool for not including a warning that says
>>> "WARNING: Screwdrivers have pointy bits; do not stick them in your eye,
>>> or you are likely to be injured!".
>>
>> I think they just cover that with "Do not use this item for any purpose
>> other than for which it is designed to be used" ;-)
>
> Oh, I don't know that that's sufficient.  At least here in the US, it
> still has to be somebody's *fault*.

Yep - your own :-P

<snip>
>>> - but things like insulin for diabetic students.  Apparently they're
>>> supposed to get insulin injections without using a syringe because the
>>> teachers can't tell the difference between a diabetic student taking
>>> necessary medication and a heroin junkie shooting up in the hallway.
>>
>> Easy, if the person shooting up rolls their eyes back into their head
>> and gains a big grin on their faces I don't think it's insulin.
>
> Yeah, but that requires thinking on the part of the school
> administration, and we can't have *that* going on in our schools....

Two independent thought alarms in one day! But yeah that would require  
making a judgment call for which you can be sued later.

> But there's also (in some schools) a double-standard.  Students have ZT
> applied to them, but let a staffer do something that is a *fireable*
> offense and those same non-thinking administration people are willing to
> overlook it.

But we both know that the normal rules are suspended in times of  
emergency, just look at all the laws both our governments have been  
ramming through the system. "We think you've got drugs on your person.  
Strip down while I put on this rubber glove"

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Oh, I don't know that that's sufficient.  At least here in the US, it 
> still has to be somebody's *fault*.

Not really. However, product safety has been legislated to be a 
strict-liability tort. What that means is, the Congress made rules that 
said if someone gets hurt by your product, even through no fault of the 
manufacturer, they can still get money from the manufacturer.

This was originally due to the fact that polio vaccinations would 
normally be expected to kill some tiny percentage (1 in a million?) of 
those receiving them, simply due to the way they worked. The government 
thought it would be reasonable to make the polio vaccine manufacturers 
buy the insurance to pay off claims associated with that. But they had a 
hard time limiting it to just vaccinations.

So now, about a third of the cost of a ladder goes towards paying 
insurance against claims by people too stupid to know how to use a 
ladder (or using it wrongly even when they're not stupid). About half 
the cost of a bicycle helmet goes towards paying insurance. Etc.

(There are a handful of other strict-liability torts around too: 
excavation, construction using explosives, etc. Even if you do 
everything right when you're digging a swimming pool, and the 
neighborhood kid falls in and breaks his leg, or your house collapses 
because it was built wrong, it's the responsibility of the pool builder 
to pay it off.)

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 08:00:38 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Oh, I don't know that that's sufficient.  At least here in the US, it
>> still has to be somebody's *fault*.
> 
> Not really. However, product safety has been legislated to be a
> strict-liability tort. What that means is, the Congress made rules that
> said if someone gets hurt by your product, even through no fault of the
> manufacturer, they can still get money from the manufacturer.

I'm not necessarily talking legally, I'm just talking about how most 
people seem to behave - that they couldn't have made a mistake, it has to 
be someone else's responsibility.  Suing someone else over something 
you've done that is stupid is a way to "strike it rich".  Most of the 
time, the person doing the suing doesn't understand that there's a 
difference between getting a judgement and collecting it, though.

The best example I have (personally) of this behaviour is when I broke my 
leg; I was rollerblading, and someone who was going against the flow ran 
into me and knocked me over.  She was *actively* afraid of me being able 
to identify her, and sent a friend over to say she was sorry.

I told her friend to tell her not to worry about it - was my own stupid 
fault for going on the more experienced rink my second time out.  A lot 
of people would've been looking to sue over it.

Another example: My son's girlfriend was in a car accident about 8 months 
ago; someone ran a red light and hit her truck, totaling it.  The kid in 
the other car ran the light, and they sued *her* for the damage to their 
vehicle, as well as for their medical injuries.  Even though THEY were 
not wearing their seat belts.

Personally, I don't think they stand much of a chance of winning, but 
there is *a* chance, and it's costing Ken's girlfriend and her family a 
lot of money to even *defend* against the suit.

> This was originally due to the fact that polio vaccinations would
> normally be expected to kill some tiny percentage (1 in a million?) of
> those receiving them, simply due to the way they worked. The government
> thought it would be reasonable to make the polio vaccine manufacturers
> buy the insurance to pay off claims associated with that. But they had a
> hard time limiting it to just vaccinations.
> 
> So now, about a third of the cost of a ladder goes towards paying
> insurance against claims by people too stupid to know how to use a
> ladder (or using it wrongly even when they're not stupid). About half
> the cost of a bicycle helmet goes towards paying insurance. Etc.
> 
> (There are a handful of other strict-liability torts around too:
> excavation, construction using explosives, etc. Even if you do
> everything right when you're digging a swimming pool, and the
> neighborhood kid falls in and breaks his leg, or your house collapses
> because it was built wrong, it's the responsibility of the pool builder
> to pay it off.)

Yep, what you've written here is a good explanation of how things work 
and how the costs are factored into the cost of goods.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:35:16 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:

>> Oh, I don't know that that's sufficient.  At least here in the US, it
>> still has to be somebody's *fault*.
> 
> Yep - your own :-P

I wish more people would realise this.  But the trend over the last 
several years has been to blame someone else in order to hit the 
"jackpot" with a sizable judgment.  The most famous was Stella, who won a 
judgment against McDonald's because she put a hot cup of coffee between 
her legs and got burned.

All things about the proper temperature to serve coffee at and whatnot 
aside, *she* decided to put a cup of hot liquid there.  McDonald's didn't 
make her do that.

(The judgment she won was reduced significantly upon appeal - that fact's 
not often discussed by people who site this case).

I'm not a big fan of McD's, but the result was that they also had to put 
a warning on the cup that states that the contents are hot.  As if it was 
impossible to tell that.

>> Yeah, but that requires thinking on the part of the school
>> administration, and we can't have *that* going on in our schools....
> 
> Two independent thought alarms in one day! But yeah that would require
> making a judgment call for which you can be sued later.

LOL

>> But there's also (in some schools) a double-standard.  Students have ZT
>> applied to them, but let a staffer do something that is a *fireable*
>> offense and those same non-thinking administration people are willing
>> to overlook it.
> 
> But we both know that the normal rules are suspended in times of
> emergency, just look at all the laws both our governments have been
> ramming through the system. "We think you've got drugs on your person.
> Strip down while I put on this rubber glove"

Yeah, that's true enough.  But a staffer doing something (as opposed to a 
student) doesn't really qualify in my book as an "emergency" of any sort.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> I'm not necessarily talking legally, I'm just talking about how most 
> people seem to behave - that they couldn't have made a mistake, it has to 
> be someone else's responsibility.

I think one is the result of the other, tho. I don't think people 
thought this way 100 years ago.

> Another example: My son's girlfriend was in a car accident about 8 months 

I read where someone stole a car, ran from the police in it, caused 
damage to the police cars chasing, and the police sued the owner of the 
car for the damage. Weird.

> Yep, what you've written here is a good explanation of how things work 
> and how the costs are factored into the cost of goods.

Except that it's self-reinforcing. People win giant lawsuits *because* 
of the liability laws. People wouldn't sue if they could only get 
recompense for the actual damage done, and I expect most wouldn't sue if 
they'd done something stupid if they would lose because they did 
something stupid. But because the laws are there, companies buy 
insurance and bump their prices, and because of this people *do* sue.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 09:45:40 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I'm not necessarily talking legally, I'm just talking about how most
>> people seem to behave - that they couldn't have made a mistake, it has
>> to be someone else's responsibility.
> 
> I think one is the result of the other, tho. I don't think people
> thought this way 100 years ago.

Very possible.

>> Another example: My son's girlfriend was in a car accident about 8
>> months
> 
> I read where someone stole a car, ran from the police in it, caused
> damage to the police cars chasing, and the police sued the owner of the
> car for the damage. Weird.

Yeah, lots of stories like that.  Guy breaks into a house, gets himself 
locked in the garage with only some dog food to eat.  For a week, because 
the homeowners were on vacation.  Sues the homeowners (and IIRC wins) 
because they failed to provide him an escape route and he nearly starved 
to death.

>> Yep, what you've written here is a good explanation of how things work
>> and how the costs are factored into the cost of goods.
> 
> Except that it's self-reinforcing. People win giant lawsuits *because*
> of the liability laws. People wouldn't sue if they could only get
> recompense for the actual damage done, and I expect most wouldn't sue if
> they'd done something stupid if they would lose because they did
> something stupid. But because the laws are there, companies buy
> insurance and bump their prices, and because of this people *do* sue.

Yep, it is a vicious cycle, no doubt about that.

The whole system is fundamentally broken, I think, at least as regards 
liability.  There is a place for liability, of course, but we're at a 
ridiculous place now.  Just ask any doctor about malpractice insurance, 
especially in fields that are still considered experimental.

Jim

Post a reply to this message