Is there such a thing?

Last evening got a call that showed up as

1-123-456-7890

Post a reply to this message

Jim Holsenback wrote:
> Is there such a thing?
> 
> Last evening got a call that showed up as
> 
> 1-123-456-7890 
> 
> 

Yes there is and it's obnoxious. Its a way to get around the Do Not Call 
list. By falsifying the number, there's little you can do to report the 
call. Usually they don't give a name in the recorded message, Instead 
instruct you to push a number, which transfers an agent who is trained 
to hang up at the first sign of someone actually trying to discover the 
identity. There's a new round of them going around lately. My caller-id 
on my cellphone gave back a number with an extra digit. My home phone 
had the same number you describe call it. Both were vague recorded 
messages.

Post a reply to this message

"Mike Raiford" <mra### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message 
news:48861701$1@news.povray.org...
> Yes there is and it's obnoxious. Its a way to get around the Do Not Call 
> list. By falsifying the number, there's little you can do to report the 
> call. Usually they don't give a name in the recorded message, Instead 
> instruct you to push a number, which transfers an agent who is trained to 
> hang up at the first sign of someone actually trying to discover the 
> identity. There's a new round of them going around lately. My caller-id on 
> my cellphone gave back a number with an extra digit. My home phone had the 
> same number you describe call it. Both were vague recorded messages.

well sheesh ..... it seems like these days it's all about finding a way to 
get around the rules. first it's the patriots and their "video gate" and now 
this!

It's shear madness out there I tell you!!!! ;-)

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Holsenback" <jho### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Is there such a thing?
>
> Last evening got a call that showed up as
>
> 1-123-456-7890

See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caller_ID_spoofing

Isaac

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:13:02 -0300, Jim Holsenback wrote:

> Is there such a thing?
> 
> Last evening got a call that showed up as
> 
> 1-123-456-7890

Yeah, there is - though I thought in the US it was illegal.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:13:02 -0300, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> 
>> Is there such a thing?
>>
>> Last evening got a call that showed up as
>>
>> 1-123-456-7890
> 
> Yeah, there is - though I thought in the US it was illegal.
> 
> Jim

The businesses using it have money, so that law doesn't apply to them. 
In the US, we only bust kids playing with computers and charge them with 
being cyber terrorists.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 21:24:33 -0400, Sabrina Kilian wrote:

> The businesses using it have money, so that law doesn't apply to them.
> In the US, we only bust kids playing with computers and charge them with
> being cyber terrorists.

Sad but true sometimes....

In a way, it kinda reflects back on the old "Phreaking" history...

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian wrote:

> The businesses using it have money, so that law doesn't apply to them. 
> In the US, we only bust kids playing with computers and charge them with 
> being cyber terrorists.

The "terrorist" du jour appears to be a woman and her father taking 
pictures of butterflies on petunias.

My wife and her dad were taking pictures of a butterfly in some town 
square shopping area type setting. A security guard approached them, and 
demanded they sign paperwork stating they wouldn't share the pictures on 
the internet.

They didn't sign any paperwork. :)

I so very much wish I were there. But it's probably a good thing, 
because what I would have done would most assuredly get myself thrown in 
jail.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Holsenback wrote:
> Is there such a thing?
> 
> Last evening got a call that showed up as
> 
> 1-123-456-7890 

	It's very likely that this was a call from someone using Skype Out. Not 
intentional spoofing. Don't put it on any block list as it's likely 
someone you know trying to call.

	And yes, it's easy to spoof, and as someone pointed out, illegal in the 
US (not sure if this is a state rule or a federal rule). I did it once, 
two years ago. I had set up an Asterisk server on my computer and was 
playing around with it. I signed up for a phone number, and the software 
lets you configure what the outgoing caller ID will be. I tried it, 
called my normal phone line, and checked the caller ID. It was whatever 
I had set it to be. That simple.

	Didn't call anyone else with that spoofed ID, though - and abandoned 
the whole Asterisk thing a day or two later.

-- 
----> If you cut here, you'll ruin your monitor. <----


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

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:34:56 -0500, Mueen Nawaz wrote:

> And yes, it's easy to spoof, and as someone pointed out, illegal in the
> US (not sure if this is a state rule or a federal rule).

I believe that would be at the federal level, as the agency in charge of 
that would be the FCC (a federal agency) and the laws would undoubtably 
be covered under intrastate commerce, which is a federal set of laws.

They get some pretty weird stuff in at the federal level under intrastate 
commerce rules.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> 
>> The businesses using it have money, so that law doesn't apply to them. 
>> In the US, we only bust kids playing with computers and charge them 
>> with being cyber terrorists.
> 
> The "terrorist" du jour appears to be a woman and her father taking 
> pictures of butterflies on petunias.
> 
> My wife and her dad were taking pictures of a butterfly in some town 
> square shopping area type setting. A security guard approached them, and 
> demanded they sign paperwork stating they wouldn't share the pictures on 
> the internet.
> 
> They didn't sign any paperwork. :)
> 
> I so very much wish I were there. But it's probably a good thing, 
> because what I would have done would most assuredly get myself thrown in 
> jail.

Good for them!

I wouldn't have signed it either, and probably would have been too busy 
laughing at the security guard to ask him to prove that s/he could 
identify the petunia and butterfly that I was taking a picture of, and 
to prove that s/he had the authority to ask me to sign paperwork. Then I 
would have offered the butterfly a dollar to sign a model release, if 
the guard could catch it

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Wed, 23 Jul 2008 13:37:41 +0100, Mike Raiford  
<mra### [at] hotmailcom> did spake, saying:

> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>
>> The businesses using it have money, so that law doesn't apply to them.  
>> In the US, we only bust kids playing with computers and charge them  
>> with being cyber terrorists.
>
> The "terrorist" du jour appears to be a woman and her father taking  
> pictures of butterflies on petunias.

On a similar note we've just had the story of someone being asked to stop  
taking photos of a kiddies paddling pool - the someone in question being  
an 82-year old women taking pictures of an empty pool.

The staff member was just rigorously following the ISRM guidelines that  
cleverly don't distinguish between a populated and unpopulated area.

-- 
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 Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:48:48 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:

> And lo on Wed, 23 Jul 2008 13:37:41 +0100, Mike Raiford
> <mra### [at] hotmailcom> did spake, saying:
> 
>> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>>
>>> The businesses using it have money, so that law doesn't apply to them.
>>> In the US, we only bust kids playing with computers and charge them
>>> with being cyber terrorists.
>>
>> The "terrorist" du jour appears to be a woman and her father taking
>> pictures of butterflies on petunias.
> 
> On a similar note we've just had the story of someone being asked to
> stop taking photos of a kiddies paddling pool - the someone in question
> being an 82-year old women taking pictures of an empty pool.
> 
> The staff member was just rigorously following the ISRM guidelines that
> cleverly don't distinguish between a populated and unpopulated area.

Why is this discussion making me think "In communist Russia...." lines?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:08:46 +0100, Jim Henderson  
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:

> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:48:48 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:
>
>> And lo on Wed, 23 Jul 2008 13:37:41 +0100, Mike Raiford
>> <mra### [at] hotmailcom> did spake, saying:
>>
>>> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>>>
>>>> The businesses using it have money, so that law doesn't apply to them.
>>>> In the US, we only bust kids playing with computers and charge them
>>>> with being cyber terrorists.
>>>
>>> The "terrorist" du jour appears to be a woman and her father taking
>>> pictures of butterflies on petunias.
>>
>> On a similar note we've just had the story of someone being asked to
>> stop taking photos of a kiddies paddling pool - the someone in question
>> being an 82-year old women taking pictures of an empty pool.
>>
>> The staff member was just rigorously following the ISRM guidelines that
>> cleverly don't distinguish between a populated and unpopulated area.
>
> Why is this discussion making me think "In communist Russia...." lines?

Possibly because we have a PM that's been referred to as Stalin?

As I said the problem was with the guidelines -

1. With digital cameras getting smaller and with no need for third-party  
processing the ability to misuse images increases.
2. Obviously people in changing rooms, locker rooms, swimming pools etc  
are particularly susceptible to this.
3. Therefore make a rule banning cameras from those areas.

This is the rule that the staff get told and they're certainly not paid to  
think (and would no doubt be reprimanded if they did) so the fact that the  
reason for the rule existing does not apply in these circumstances has no  
bearing on the application of the rule.

Quote: "We have to walk a fine line between protecting the children who  
use this popular paddling pool and the interests of the community as a  
whole. A lot of people are more concerned about the safety of their  
children these days so it is appropriate that our staff are aware of who  
is taking photos in the area."

Not a hint that the guidelines might need tweaking.

-- 
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 Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:41:13 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:

>> Why is this discussion making me think "In communist Russia...." lines?
> 
> Possibly because we have a PM that's been referred to as Stalin?

LOL, I've actually seen a photo of Brown doctored up to make him look 
like Stalin.  I think it was on The Daily Show....

> As I said the problem was with the guidelines -
> 
> 1. With digital cameras getting smaller and with no need for third-party
> processing the ability to misuse images increases. 

Very true.  And the software isn't that hard to use, and in the hands of 
someone with a good eye, it can be quite convincing.

> 2. Obviously people
> in changing rooms, locker rooms, swimming pools etc are particularly
> susceptible to this. 

Yep.

> 3. Therefore make a rule banning cameras from those
> areas.

Our gym is like this - no recording devices of any kind without 
management approval.

> This is the rule that the staff get told and they're certainly not paid
> to think (and would no doubt be reprimanded if they did) so the fact
> that the reason for the rule existing does not apply in these
> circumstances has no bearing on the application of the rule.

Also true.  Unfortunately, in cases like changing rooms and whatnot, the 
rule makes sense, but a Zero Tolerance approach to enforcement can take 
this to an extreme - for example, because of the proliferation of phones 
with cameras built-in, a ZT-style enforcer of a policy of "no recording 
devices" might decide to eject members who have phones with photo 
capabilities, even though the phone isn't being used.  If the member is 
an IT person who is REQUIRED to carry a phone as part of their employment 
and the company provides a phone with a camera built into it, that 
creates a problem.

When I was looking for a new phone, I settled on the Blackberry 8700.  
First because I was able to pick an unused-but-previously-owned one very 
cheap, and second because it had no camera.  I've been to corporate 
facilities in the last 5 years where they *will* confiscate any cameras 
or recording devices, no questions asked.  There was (and is) the 
potential for me to visit government and military installations (not very 
likely now, but that could change) and I didn't want to have to make a 
choice between being able to be contacted if it was necessary and being 
able to do my job.

> Quote: "We have to walk a fine line between protecting the children who
> use this popular paddling pool and the interests of the community as a
> whole. A lot of people are more concerned about the safety of their
> children these days so it is appropriate that our staff are aware of who
> is taking photos in the area."
> 
> Not a hint that the guidelines might need tweaking.

Yeah, and that's sad.  The possession of a recording device doesn't make 
one a criminal (or, more specifically, having one near a paddling pool 
doesn't make one a *paedophile*), nor even does taking pictures of kids 
having fun at the pool make one a criminal or a paedophile.  It's the 
pattern of *behaviour* that does.

But as a society (and I think this is a western-societial problem 
mostly), we are tending towards the type of "shoot first, ask questions 
later" Zero-Tolerance policies that remove common sense and thinking from 
the process.

For an excellent essay on ZT problems, if you haven't seen it, have a 
look over at http://www.thisistrue.com/zt.html

(And BTW, I do subscribe to the 'premium' TRUE subscription and have for 
years - it's a very good and often quite funny newsletter - even the free 
one is quite good, but I like the additional stories in the premium 
edition as well.  I think you'd enjoy it, Phil)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:34:24 +0100, Jim Henderson  

<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:

> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:41:13 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:
>
>>> Why is this discussion making me think "In communist Russia...." lin
es?
>>
>> Possibly because we have a PM that's been referred to as Stalin?
>
> LOL, I've actually seen a photo of Brown doctored up to make him look
> like Stalin.  I think it was on The Daily Show....

We're even getting forced labour now... sort of
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/unemployed-to-be-used-for-sou
p--200807211110/

> Our gym is like this - no recording devices of any kind without
> management approval.
>
>> This is the rule that the staff get told and they're certainly not pa
id
>> to think (and would no doubt be reprimanded if they did) so the fact
>> that the reason for the rule existing does not apply in these
>> circumstances has no bearing on the application of the rule.
>
> Also true.  Unfortunately, in cases like changing rooms and whatnot, t
he
> rule makes sense, but a Zero Tolerance approach to enforcement can tak
e
> this to an extreme - for example, because of the proliferation of phon
es
> with cameras built-in, a ZT-style enforcer of a policy of "no recordin
g
> devices" might decide to eject members who have phones with photo
> capabilities, even though the phone isn't being used.  If the member i
s
> an IT person who is REQUIRED to carry a phone as part of their employm
ent
> and the company provides a phone with a camera built into it, that
> creates a problem.

It's an attitude shift "I'm not being paid enough to deal with the  

applications of this rule I'm just going to enforce it" instead of  

jobsworth perhaps rulesworth? Pratchettism from Going Postal regarding t
he  

ability to cripple the 'clacks' system - In the old days the head of the
  

tower would strip the message from the list knowing they were doing the 
 

right thing and that the people back at Head Office would agree; not now
.

> When I was looking for a new phone, I settled on the Blackberry 8700.
> First because I was able to pick an unused-but-previously-owned one ve
ry
> cheap, and second because it had no camera.  I've been to corporate
> facilities in the last 5 years where they *will* confiscate any camera
s
> or recording devices, no questions asked.  There was (and is) the
> potential for me to visit government and military installations (not v
ery
> likely now, but that could change) and I didn't want to have to make a

> choice between being able to be contacted if it was necessary and bein
g
> able to do my job.

I'm surprised it isn't a blanket ban, how many phones without a camera c
an  

still record audio?

>> Quote: "We have to walk a fine line between protecting the children w
ho
>> use this popular paddling pool and the interests of the community as 
a
>> whole. A lot of people are more concerned about the safety of their
>> children these days so it is appropriate that our staff are aware of 
who
>> is taking photos in the area."
>>
>> Not a hint that the guidelines might need tweaking.
>
> Yeah, and that's sad.  The possession of a recording device doesn't ma
ke
> one a criminal (or, more specifically, having one near a paddling pool

> doesn't make one a *paedophile*), nor even does taking pictures of kid
s
> having fun at the pool make one a criminal or a paedophile.  It's the
> pattern of *behaviour* that does.

But patterns are hard to discern and as per above I'm not paid to think,
  

so better just to go for the option that you can't be disciplined/fired 
 

for "Just obeying the rules!".

> But as a society (and I think this is a western-societial problem
> mostly), we are tending towards the type of "shoot first, ask question
s
> later" Zero-Tolerance policies that remove common sense and thinking f
rom
> the process.
>
> For an excellent essay on ZT problems, if you haven't seen it, have a
> look over at http://www.thisistrue.com/zt.html

Bloody hellski. The trouble with such 'laws' is how they equate things -
  

water pistol = firearm, asking a boy if he likes you = sexual harass
ment.  

I assume you've read Roger MacBride Allen's Caliban dealing with Three L
aw  

Robots, such a robot doesn't distinguish between one human being attacke
d  

by another and someone standing on a tall building; both are dangerous. 
As  

robots are omnipresent humans began to fail to distinguish between these
  

dangers too.

> (And BTW, I do subscribe to the 'premium' TRUE subscription and have f
or
> years - it's a very good and often quite funny newsletter - even the f
ree
> one is quite good, but I like the additional stories in the premium
> edition as well.  I think you'd enjoy it, Phil)

I do like the tag line.

-- 

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 Fri, 25 Jul 2008 12:25:39 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:

>> LOL, I've actually seen a photo of Brown doctored up to make him look
>> like Stalin.  I think it was on The Daily Show....
> 
> We're even getting forced labour now... sort of
> http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/unemployed-to-be-used-for-
soup--200807211110/

<shaking head>  What's the world coming to?

>> photo capabilities, even though the phone isn't being used.  If the
>> member is an IT person who is REQUIRED to carry a phone as part of
>> their employment and the company provides a phone with a camera built
>> into it, that creates a problem.
> 
> It's an attitude shift "I'm not being paid enough to deal with the
> applications of this rule I'm just going to enforce it" instead of
> jobsworth perhaps rulesworth? Pratchettism from Going Postal regarding
> the ability to cripple the 'clacks' system - In the old days the head of
> the tower would strip the message from the list knowing they were doing
> the right thing and that the people back at Head Office would agree; not
> now.

Oh, yeah, I understand why people take "the lazy way out".  There's a 
real sense that as a society, we've become lazy, particularly in the 
areas of applying common sense to things and in behaving ethically.

>> (not very likely now, but that could change) and I didn't want to have
>> to make a choice between being able to be contacted if it was necessary
>> and being able to do my job.
> 
> I'm surprised it isn't a blanket ban, how many phones without a camera
> can still record audio?

I know mine doesn't have an application for that.  It probably could with 
the right app, but I haven't had a need.

>> kids having fun at the pool make one a criminal or a paedophile.  It's
>> the pattern of *behaviour* that does.
> 
> But patterns are hard to discern and as per above I'm not paid to think,
> so better just to go for the option that you can't be disciplined/fired
> for "Just obeying the rules!".

Yeah.  It is a "society becoming lazy" thing in my mind.

>> But as a society (and I think this is a western-societial problem
>> mostly), we are tending towards the type of "shoot first, ask questions
>> later" Zero-Tolerance policies that remove common sense and thinking
>> from the process.
>>
>> For an excellent essay on ZT problems, if you haven't seen it, have a
>> look over at http://www.thisistrue.com/zt.html
> 
> Bloody hellski. The trouble with such 'laws' is how they equate things -
> water pistol = firearm, asking a boy if he likes you = sexual
> harassment. I assume you've read Roger MacBride Allen's Caliban dealing
> with Three Law Robots, such a robot doesn't distinguish between one
> human being attacked by another and someone standing on a tall building;
> both are dangerous. As robots are omnipresent humans began to fail to
> distinguish between these dangers too.

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".  We're not talking about 
minimum-wage workers making those kinds of decisions - school 
*administration* people saying "we're not going to apply common sense 
here", as if there's a difference between inhaling from an albuterol 
inhaler (for asthma) and huffing from a can of compressed air.

It's absolutely *ridiculous*.

>> (And BTW, I do subscribe to the 'premium' TRUE subscription and have
>> for years - it's a very good and often quite funny newsletter - even
>> the free one is quite good, but I like the additional stories in the
>> premium edition as well.  I think you'd enjoy it, Phil)
> 
> I do like the tag line.

Each story he does comes with a tag line - it's one of the things that 
makes it fun to read.  Another reason for the premium subscription as 
well is that you can participate in a monthly "tagline challenge" where 
the readers send in suggestions for taglines for one story.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Mon, 28 Jul 2008 17:46:59 +0100, Jim Henderson  

<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:

> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 12:25:39 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:
>
>>> LOL, I've actually seen a photo of Brown doctored up to make him loo
k
>>> like Stalin.  I think it was on The Daily Show....
>>
>> We're even getting forced labour now... sort of
>> http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/unemployed-to-be-used-for-

> soup--200807211110/
>
> <shaking head>  What's the world coming to?

Hey if it means more jobs in the soup processing industry ;-)

>>> photo capabilities, even though the phone isn't being used.  If the
>>> member is an IT person who is REQUIRED to carry a phone as part of
>>> their employment and the company provides a phone with a camera buil
t
>>> into it, that creates a problem.
>>
>> It's an attitude shift "I'm not being paid enough to deal with the
>> applications of this rule I'm just going to enforce it" instead of
>> jobsworth perhaps rulesworth? Pratchettism from Going Postal regardin
g
>> the ability to cripple the 'clacks' system - In the old days the head
 of
>> the tower would strip the message from the list knowing they were doi
ng
>> the right thing and that the people back at Head Office would agree; 
not
>> now.
>
> Oh, yeah, I understand why people take "the lazy way out".  There's a
> real sense that as a society, we've become lazy, particularly in the
> areas of applying common sense to things and in behaving ethically.
<snip>
>>> kids having fun at the pool make one a criminal or a paedophile.  It
's
>>> the pattern of *behaviour* that does.
>>
>> But patterns are hard to discern and as per above I'm not paid to thi
nk,
>> so better just to go for the option that you can't be disciplined/fir
ed
>> for "Just obeying the rules!".
>
> 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 f
or  

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-d
uh!

>>> But as a society (and I think this is a western-societial problem
>>> mostly), we are tending towards the type of "shoot first, ask questi
ons
>>> later" Zero-Tolerance policies that remove common sense and thinking

>>> from the process.
>>>
>>> For an excellent essay on ZT problems, if you haven't seen it, have 
a
>>> look over at http://www.thisistrue.com/zt.html
>>
>> Bloody hellski. The trouble with such 'laws' is how they equate thing
s -
>> water pistol = firearm, asking a boy if he likes you = sexual
>> harassment. I assume you've read Roger MacBride Allen's Caliban deali
ng
>> with Three Law Robots, such a robot doesn't distinguish between one
>> human being attacked by another and someone standing on a tall buildi
ng;
>> both are dangerous. As robots are omnipresent humans began to fail to

>> distinguish between these dangers too.
>
> 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.

>  We're not talking about
> minimum-wage workers making those kinds of decisions - school
> *administration* people saying "we're not going to apply common sense
> here", as if there's a difference between inhaling from an albuterol
> inhaler (for asthma) and huffing from a can of compressed air.
>
> It's absolutely *ridiculous*.

Yeah that is ridiculous. I think I've still got buried somewhere in the 
 

mounds my old cap-gun an item I would now NEVER hand-down as a toy and  

cannot be bought anymore as it's modelled on a real gun. Heh crooks shou
ld  

start pimping their weaponry with plastic fins and day-glo accessories  

that way the government would have an excuse to ban anything that looked
  

like a gun.

>>> (And BTW, I do subscribe to the 'premium' TRUE subscription and have

>>> for years - it's a very good and often quite funny newsletter - even

>>> the free one is quite good, but I like the additional stories in the

>>> premium edition as well.  I think you'd enjoy it, Phil)
>>
>> I do like the tag line.
>
> Each story he does comes with a tag line - it's one of the things that

> makes it fun to read.  Another reason for the premium subscription as
> well is that you can participate in a monthly "tagline challenge" wher
e
> the readers send in suggestions for taglines for one story.

Well I meant "Truth is Stranger than Fiction because Fiction Has to Make
  

Sense"

-- 

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 Tue, 29 Jul 2008 10:37:47 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:

>>> We're even getting forced labour now... sort of
>>> http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/unemployed-to-be-used-for-
>> soup--200807211110/
>>
>> <shaking head>  What's the world coming to?
> 
> Hey if it means more jobs in the soup processing industry ;-)

LOL

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

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).

>> 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 - 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.

>>  We're not talking about
>> minimum-wage workers making those kinds of decisions - school
>> *administration* people saying "we're not going to apply common sense
>> here", as if there's a difference between inhaling from an albuterol
>> inhaler (for asthma) and huffing from a can of compressed air.
>>
>> It's absolutely *ridiculous*.
> 
> Yeah that is ridiculous. I think I've still got buried somewhere in the
> mounds my old cap-gun an item I would now NEVER hand-down as a toy and
> cannot be bought anymore as it's modelled on a real gun. Heh crooks
> should start pimping their weaponry with plastic fins and day-glo
> accessories that way the government would have an excuse to ban anything
> that looked like a gun.

Heh, now that would make things interesting.....

>>> I do like the tag line.
>>
>> Each story he does comes with a tag line - it's one of the things that
>> makes it fun to read.  Another reason for the premium subscription as
>> well is that you can participate in a monthly "tagline challenge" where
>> the readers send in suggestions for taglines for one story.
> 
> Well I meant "Truth is Stranger than Fiction because Fiction Has to Make
> Sense"

Oh, yeah - that is a good one. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

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.


-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Helpful housekeeping hints:
   Check your feather pillows for holes
    before putting them in the washing machine.

Post a reply to this message

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

Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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.
> 


Only in this case, it really might have been McD's fault. Coffee should 
be served at a drinkable temperature, maybe a bit warmer to keep it warm 
in the cup for a while. That temperature would not have resulted in the 
burns the woman got. The coffee had to be at a much higher temperature, 
in which case someone at McD's had either fiddled with the machine or 
ignored it's maintenance. If she had sipped it instead of spilling it 
first, she would have got burns through her mouth and throat instead.

Post a reply to this message

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

The cost of malpractice issues is going to show up somewhere, though. If 
you make it so that doctors are not liable for more then lets say 
100grand, what happens to the person that they really screw up? My 
cousin is suing a doctor, it's been in the local paper several times so 
I don't mind mentioning it, because he royally screwed up. Other doctors 
looked at his notes, said they were wrong, they checked the surgical 
site and pointed out all he did wrong. She had a good job, and the jury 
found that, between lost wages and further treatment, with minimal pain 
and suffering, they awarded over 3 million. The state doesn't allow for 
that much. So, instead of taking the money from the doctor, she gets to 
take it from the state in the form of state health care and subsidies: 
also called taxes.

Anyone disabled puts a sink on the economy, in some way. It's mitigated 
by various means. But the current trend of limiting state health care 
due to malpractice while at the same time limiting malpractice law suits 
is just asking for trouble.

I mean, what do you call the student who graduated last of their class 
from med school?

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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.

What the O_O

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> The cost of malpractice issues is going to show up somewhere, though.

The problem is more that something like 25% of all doctors get sued for 
malpractice in their first five years. If "malpractice" is something so 
bad even a layman can understand how bad it is, then either way too many 
people are suing for malpractice or the medical schools are turning out 
complete morons.

Not that there aren't good situations for malpractice, but the doctor 
failing to cure you isn't necessarily a malpractice case.
-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:06:31 +0100, Jim Henderson  
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:

> 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.

Well if the media publicise the 'Judge orders company to pay $X in  
compensation" over the "Judge clears company in court case" then what  
anyone expect?

>  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.

Darren talked about this in a much earlier thread. He pointed out that  
McDs knew the coffee was over temperature and did nothing about it, but  
that the only way this was discovered was because Stella sued and got hold  
of the literature documenting this.

>>> 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

Heh as per the photograph taking you can't be done for obeying the rules,  
your employers/company can be but you're safe.

>>> 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.

Running around waving my hands in the air type of emergency rather then  
staying quiet and fearing for my life type of emergency.

-- 
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

And lo on Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:01:56 +0100, Jim Henderson  
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:

> 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.

Aren't their any preliminary hearings where a judge can read the case and  
essentially say "Don't be so ****ing stupid"? Thus saving everyone (apart  
 from the lawyers) money.

-- 
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

Phil Cook wrote:
> Darren talked about this in a much earlier thread. He pointed out that 
> McDs knew the coffee was over temperature and did nothing about it,

Well, you can argue whether it was "over temperature" or just "hotter 
than other peoples' coffee".  It was intentionally hotter, because it 
tastes better and they thought most people would drive a while before 
drinking it, so by then it would be cool.

Not to rehash the whole thing. Just pointing out, it wasn't 
"accidentally over temperature", it was "intentionally served hot."

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

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook wrote:
> Aren't their any preliminary hearings where a judge can read the case 
> and essentially say "Don't be so ****ing stupid"? Thus saving everyone 
> (apart from the lawyers) money.

Yes.  It's called a preliminary summary judgement.  IANAL.

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

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>> The cost of malpractice issues is going to show up somewhere, though.
> 
> The problem is more that something like 25% of all doctors get sued for 
> malpractice in their first five years. If "malpractice" is something so 
> bad even a layman can understand how bad it is, then either way too many 
> people are suing for malpractice or the medical schools are turning out 
> complete morons.
> 
> Not that there aren't good situations for malpractice, but the doctor 
> failing to cure you isn't necessarily a malpractice case.

But, doctors hurried so much by the insurance companies that they miss 
simple signs of diseases and fail to cure them, is that malpractice?

It's not too hard to spot the difference between scarlet fever and strep 
throat, if you have more then 2 minutes per patient.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:

> 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.

That was in the usa, wasn't it?

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 09:14:15 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:

>> 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.
> 
> Well if the media publicise the 'Judge orders company to pay $X in
> compensation" over the "Judge clears company in court case" then what
> anyone expect?

Ah, well, that gets into my second big pet peeve - the news media....

>>  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.
> 
> Darren talked about this in a much earlier thread. He pointed out that
> McDs knew the coffee was over temperature and did nothing about it, but
> that the only way this was discovered was because Stella sued and got
> hold of the literature documenting this.

Even still, if she hadn't put the damned cup of coffee *between her 
legs*, she wouldn't have gotten burned.  She was in a moving *car* for 
crying out loud.

>>> 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.
> 
> Running around waving my hands in the air type of emergency rather then
> staying quiet and fearing for my life type of emergency.

I'm thinking of situations where the school has a ZT policy on weapons 
and then doesn't enforce it when a teacher brings a pistol to school, but 
does when a student *who's on the rifle team* gets suspended because he 
brought his rifle to school but left it in his car *unloaded*.

(As an example).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 16:55:59 -0400, Sabrina Kilian wrote:

> Only in this case, it really might have been McD's fault. Coffee should
> be served at a drinkable temperature, maybe a bit warmer to keep it warm
> in the cup for a while. That temperature would not have resulted in the
> burns the woman got. The coffee had to be at a much higher temperature,
> in which case someone at McD's had either fiddled with the machine or
> ignored it's maintenance. If she had sipped it instead of spilling it
> first, she would have got burns through her mouth and throat instead.

Except that she would have sipped it and realised before liquid even hit 
her lips that it was very hot.

She was in a car that was moving.  Moving cars sometimes have to stop 
quickly.  It is sheer idiocy that anyone would think "hey, I've got a hot 
cup of coffee here, what could possibly happen to cause me to get burned?"

IMNSHO, she's got nobody to blame but herself.  She didn't *think* before 
putting the coffee between her knees.  If she hadn't done that, she 
wouldn't have gotten burned.  McD's didn't FORCE her to put the coffee 
there, she CHOSE to do so.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 10:44:48 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:

> Aren't their any preliminary hearings where a judge can read the case
> and essentially say "Don't be so ****ing stupid"? Thus saving everyone
> (apart
>  from the lawyers) money.

I believe there is, but it's not always so clear-cut once you get lawyers 
involved.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 21:02:47 -0300, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> What the O_O

Yeah, that was my reaction. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:04:51 -0400, Sabrina Kilian wrote:

> The cost of malpractice issues is going to show up somewhere, though. If
> you make it so that doctors are not liable for more then lets say
> 100grand, what happens to the person that they really screw up? 

Sure, there are legitimate cases where there is negligence on the part of 
the doctor.  I don't think there's anywhere near as many cases of it as 
are heard (or won), though.  For the insurance companies and the doctors, 
it's often cheaper to settle than to litigate.  Except that that's what 
drives the premiums up.

> My
> cousin is suing a doctor, it's been in the local paper several times so
> I don't mind mentioning it, because he royally screwed up. Other doctors
> looked at his notes, said they were wrong, they checked the surgical
> site and pointed out all he did wrong. She had a good job, and the jury
> found that, between lost wages and further treatment, with minimal pain
> and suffering, they awarded over 3 million. The state doesn't allow for
> that much. So, instead of taking the money from the doctor, she gets to
> take it from the state in the form of state health care and subsidies:
> also called taxes.

I would agree that the state was in the wrong here by limiting a 
reasonable award.

> Anyone disabled puts a sink on the economy, in some way. It's mitigated
> by various means. But the current trend of limiting state health care
> due to malpractice while at the same time limiting malpractice law suits
> is just asking for trouble.

I would agree with that.  The problem is that there are many cases where 
awards are given that are far in excess of what is "reasonable".  
Punitive damages against a doctor who engages in willful misconduct are 
not called for; suspension of the doctor's license is.

> I mean, what do you call the student who graduated last of their class
> from med school?

"Doctor".  Yeah, I know that one.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 19:54:29 +0200, Rafal wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> That was in the usa, wasn't it?

Nope, it was in the UK IIRC.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Except that she would have sipped it and realised before liquid even hit 
> her lips that it was very hot.

Yep. She couldn't tell with the paper cup in her hand that it was hot? 
Or, if not, there's a reason there's a bunch of insulation around it?

> putting the coffee between her knees.  

And I don't think I've seen in 15 years a car without cupholders.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Ever notice how people in a zombie movie never already know how to
  kill zombies? Ask 100 random people in America how to kill someone
  who has reanimated from the dead in a secret viral weapons lab,
  and how many do you think already know you need a head-shot?

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 10:51:04 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Except that she would have sipped it and realised before liquid even
>> hit her lips that it was very hot.
> 
> Yep. She couldn't tell with the paper cup in her hand that it was hot?
> Or, if not, there's a reason there's a bunch of insulation around it?

Yeah, there is also that angle as well.

>> putting the coffee between her knees.
> 
> And I don't think I've seen in 15 years a car without cupholders.

Same here.  I think my '74 Duster didn't have cupholders.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:

>> That was in the usa, wasn't it?
> Nope, it was in the UK IIRC.

Yeah thats what I thought writting that "it must USA. Well ok, or UK".

Is UK the USA of EU or something?

- military operations
- crazy law
- spying on citizens
- fat people

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 09:09:53 +0200, Rafal wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>>> That was in the usa, wasn't it?
>> Nope, it was in the UK IIRC.
> 
> Yeah thats what I thought writting that "it must USA. Well ok, or UK".
> 
> Is UK the USA of EU or something?

Nope.  If it were, I wouldn't consider moving there.

But there's a reason I wrote the monetary figures as '£' - if I'd meant 
US dollars, I would've written it appropriately. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message