mr2mk1g

You want to put a 30mm lens on a 37mm camera???

I don't accept that Doctors would be more careful if they had no insurance... or indeed that they would be any more successful in avoiding accidents if they were uninsured. I think there is a very high probability that you would see far fewer doctors in practice were they not able to insure themselves. There are a lot of people who are not willing to take the risk that they will never ever have any money again in their life ever. Remember an accidental death claim in your country costs millions - more than a doctor would ever earn in their entire career. One claim and they might as well quit - they'd be working to fill someone else's account for the rest of their life. I also think there is a very strong likelihood you would see doctors refusing to carry out certain operations. This is already happening. In an uninsured future you might see people being refused life saving operations because the doctor is unwilling to accept the risk they might move their scalpel just that extra tiny mm too far. I think the answer is that irrespective of any requirements there may be on doctors to be insured... most would chose to insure themselves in any case. Those that didn't would refuse to act in many circumstances or would find themselves paying off millions in damages for the rest of their lives. Legislatures require doctors to be insured because if they're not patients who are harmed through their accidents (remember no matter what you do accidents will ALWAYS happen) will be unable to recover damages. The end result is those most harmed by non-insurance are those who do end up hurt by these accidents in the first place.

Risk homeostasis for uninsured doctors is doctors not performing difficult or risky operations. Would you rather people were not afforded the operations that could save their lives? Remember having the patient take out their own insurance is not an option - their insurance co will simply sue the doctor - end result doctor won't carry out the operation.

I'm not altogether sure you understand what you're saying. If the patient doesn't take out medical insurance, and the Doctor doesn't take it out who pays if he's negligent? It comes out of the doctors own pocket. Remember "negligence" is as good as legalease for "accident"... if the doctor has an accident that causes injury he is liable for all the consequences. That means $$$... where medical errors are concerned that can often mean lots and lots of $$$... that's why insurance is expensive - the payouts are high. What happens is the Doctor has an accident and the patient suffers harm? (we all make mistakes - no one is perfect). The answer is the patient can then sue. They might even have to sue - they may be wheelchair bound and unable to work because of a tiny little accident meaning they have pretty much no choice. Even if the patient does have medical insurance the that insurance company simply then sues the doctor who was negligent. Result is the uninsured doctor loses his house and BMW. Result is no one wants to be an uninsured doctor. Result is all the doctors take out third party liability insurance because they chose to... that or the take the risk. ...or you end up with no doctors because no one is willing to take the risk.

I don't understand the distinction you're making between a doctor buying third party liability insurance and anyone else.

That's the point of a Republic. If you don't like it give Democracy a try.

Yup - that's exactly what I'm saying. Reliability of AAD's [to save your life] involves a consideration of the reliability of reserve parachutes as well as a consideration of the reliability of the AAD itself. ie just because your AAD fires doesn't mean you live - your reserve may fail in a number of ways. Thus the risk involved in having an AAD save your life for you involves a multiplication of both the risk the AAD will fail and the risk the reserve will fail. So even if an AAD [firing or not firing] is equally reliable as a reserve opening (another debate altogether) then an AAD deployed reserve is more risky than a self deployed reserve as it involves a multiplication of the two risk elements. So I think that means we agree... I think... (Yeah mate, happy chrimbo. We'll have to get together some point in the new year for some FF).

An AAD is only as reliable as the reserve it fires. Ought that factor into people's worry about AAD's thus making them more worrisome than simply reserves on their own? Even though modern AAD's of themselves may arguably be as reliable as reserves are when viewed independently of each other, when you take the two risk elements together (as you do with an AAD deployed reserve) you multiply those risks. Just thinking out loud.

Yeah - that's a point - where's the videot's shadow?

That is one factor in it yes. So regulate fees. Here solicitors and barristers fees are regulated by the size of the claim and the court in which they appear. Different regional courts have different billing rates dependant on the cost of living in that area. Different value cases get billed at different rates, as lower value claims are less demanding. We have a Small Claims Track for cases worth under £1000 for injuries and financial losses of less than £5000. Guess what the solicitors get paid... £80. Wonder what effect that has on people wanting to bring low value pissy little claims? Yup - you don't see many of them unless there really is a good reason to sue. In many cases these rules encourage the claimant to bring the claim themselves often, against someone who defends the claim themselves - thus no lawyers and the costs of these low value claims are miniscule. With regard to getting rid of Jury awards, this does indeed treat the cause. I don't mean get rid of juries from the decision making process re liability - thats not a big problem and many people highly value the concept. I just mean take the power to actually value the award itself out of the jury’s hands. We hear about awards of millions of dollars awarded by juries for relatively trivial injuries. Now I'm far from sure how the US system then works, does not the judge then often reduce the jury award?? but the reduced damages are still miles above what the claimant would receive in most other countries. If you took away these hugely disproportionate payouts of millions of dollars then you take away a lot of the incentive to bring stupid claims. If the payout for a couple of years of arse ache (the pain in the arse of bringing the claim) is a couple of thousand as opposed to a couple of million, fewer people will want to go through the arse ache without a genuine reason to do so.

Well that's not exactly how I'd interpret it. If you remove a whole book from the Bible you surely remove something from the Bible itself and thus change the overall message. It's merely the difference between looking at the overall picture or the microcosm of an individual line of text. Not to say the Protestant reform was heretical - as I indicated I'm sure they consider the book to not belong to the Bible. The fact that the Catholics dissagree with that interpretation is, as I indicated merely evidence that there are differences of interpretation between the two factions - no surprise there. I don't think it deminishes the message of either version of the Bible - simply because there is another group of people out there who believe your book two be wrong predates the seperation of Protestants and Catholics by centuries, you only have to look to another religion to be told you're wrong. Similarly just because there's someone there to tell you you're wrong doesn't mean you are.

Didn't say it did. Just learnt something from your post (re taking away/adding to the Bible and the resultant heresy) and made my original observation about the Protestants and Catholics. Didn't mean to add to the argument on either side... just highlighting the fact that some people here listen to these debates often and learn from them without necessarily contributing all the time. Confucius say: "Man has two ears but only one mouth, so wise man should listen twice as much as he speaks". (edit to add that I'm not insinuating you should shut up and listen... damned t'internet can give the wrong impression sometimes).

Get rid of Jury awards and you'll be half way there. Then institute a system of guidance for judges as to the appropriate award. This would give a good deal of control over settlement figures and ensure everything stays proportionate. Ditch punitive damages - or have them paid to state or charitable coffers, they just encourage claims. Cut down on inappropriate out of court settlements (note that out of court settlements of themselves are actually a VERY good thing… just not when the case should be fought) create quick mechanisms by which Defendants and or Courts can strike out weak cases. Further deter weak cases by creating mechanisms for cost sanctions on the losing side and allow surety for costs to be taken to ensure no one loses out on their costs when they win. So long as each of the above is done with the appropriate checks and balances they shouldn’t obstruct access to justice (which is something worth fighting and dieing for). I should add that while I am aware that some of the above is absent in the US justice system I do not know about the presence or otherwise of all[/I] of the above – so if I’ve included something which already exists then my bad.

I'm not talking about the going on 200 "lost" books - just the 7 that were removed in 1618 by the Synod of Dordrecht (yup - had to look the name and exact date up ). The Catholic church obviously considers them to be very much inspired by God and authored with good providence or they would not be in their Bible and remain there today. The fact that the Protestants disagree with them is not really evidence of much more than a disagreement between the two factions of the faith. I'm not trying to suggest the books are "wrong" in any way; I'm merely observing an apparent argument between the two parties and the fact that those 7 books were in one version of the Bible (and remain so) and are not in another version of the Bible having been removed.

Hehe, by that analogy think of me as a veterinarian.

I don't think there's an intent to decieve - both sides think they're right. The protestant view would be the books were heretically added by someone in the past so ought to be removed to preseve the true word of God. The Catholic view would be they have been heretically removed. Thus at least one reason for the conflict as applying your above quote, which I'm sure is just one place we'd find such sentiment, each view the other faction as heretics.

There's no wonder there have been so many wars and terrorist acts between the Catholics and Protestants then... they're 7 books adrift of each other aren't they?

The likelihood is they don’t have to prove exactly when the jump took place. “On or about” or in between certain dates would be close enough to get a conviction. The fact you were there when they picked you up and the date stamp on the footage would be highly incriminating. That is of course as long as there’s no period during the year when it is legal to jump there – in which case it would be up to them to prove you had not done it then (once you'd raised the issue)... not to say that argument would be successful of course. Also consider how they might be able to prove the footage from your first person camera view was actually shot by you... it could have been a friend or simply in the camera when you bought it the night before... again no guarantees of success.

Note to all before I say anything - these comments come from someone in the UK. Whilst there are significant commonalities between the US and UK legal systems, my comments may not be accurate in the US and most likely not at all accurate elsewhere outside the Commonwealth. In the UK, this is still trespass - you walked on their land thus you trespassed. There's no duty on the landowner to take steps to keep people out. The trespasser doesn't even need to know that they're on someone else’s land in order to commit trespass. Trespass here is not illegal - it is only a civil wrong for which you can be sued by the landowner. Law enforcement agencies will not and cannot get involved. If it's your building and you land on your land you've done nothing wrong, especially if there's no risk of you landing on anyone. You may find they want to throw all sorts of generalised public order offences at you for scaring people... they'd have a very weak case though and it's probably more of a scare tactic or done out of ignorance. Again, your building - no problem. If you're renting though either situation could cause you to be trespass and or breach the terms of your rental agreement. It would really depend on the terms of the agreement though. It’s highly unlikely a court would interpret any agreement as giving you access to the roof to jump though, and I’d put money on nothing specific being in the document its self. In the UK at least you only have permission to be on someone's property for certain reasons. If you walk into a shop with an intention to steal - you're trespassing. The shop doesn't give you permission to enter to steal - only to shop and pay. Similarly if you went to a restaurant intending to jump you'd be trespassing. The restaurant wouldn’t give you permission enter if you’d declared your intent. Equally if you tried to say you only came up with the idea at the end of the meal then from that point on you would have been trespassing, just as would someone who only has the idea to steal when they see no security around. I would be surprised if this was not also the case in the US as it goes to the heart of the legal system you inherited from us... but nothings ever a given. Again though, in the UK trespass is not actually illegal (unless you’re doing it armed or to commit an offence or from a railway – important knowledge if you’re looking at a nice viaduct). I can't speak for your home jurisdiction.

Did the vidiot clear the entaglement first, go straight to silver or somehow manage to deploy the main?

Just playing GTA San Anreas. Last night I took a few minutes out to steel a helicopter and cram it into a garage by hand. It'll take me about 10 minutes to get the thing out again, but the point is I now own a helecopter.

and now bit torrent's dead too

Locked bags and locked wire mesh security bags will just mean you arrive at your destination with a broken locked bag or broken locked wire mesh security bag. (assuming the item takes customs eye of course). There are big signs up at airports to say broken locks are your problem - your luggage has to be open for inspection. If it isn't they’re at liberty to make it so. Back when I was a student I had a friend who worked as a baggage handler. The stories he told...

It's a catch 22 situation. If A refuses to let B have their password they could be accused of trying to keep secrets from their SO. If B demands A's password they don't trust their SO enough in the first place.

Hmm, a worthy idea - so long as it's done right. Article doesn't actually say a great deal though - any idea what he's planning on doing? I realise there might not be any info in the public domain yet though, so I'd accept "no" as an answer.