RE: [cobalt-users] Cobalt to provide compensation for server hack?

[Rodolfo Paiz <rpaiz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> If it weren't for lawsuits in the US; children's pajamas
> would still burst into flames, construction workers would
> still be getting killed by trucks backing up with no alarms,
> women would still be raped in hotel rooms with unsafe locks.
> The list goes on and on. And hundreds of more people would be
> burned by coffee served at unsafe temperatures. The list goes
> on and on.
>
> What really pisses me off is people in other countries
> enjoying the benefits of many of these court decisions
> while complaining about those that brought them about.

Oh come on, Dan... blow smoke. Many many lawsuits are valid and worthy,
and too often it is necessary to take people or companies to court in
order to *force* them to do the right thing since they won't take that
path any other way. No one ever said *all* lawsuits were frivolous
bullshit; however, it is undeniable that said category exists and is
sadly common.

Also, who ever told you that anyone else actually benefits from those
valid and worthy decisions you're defending, even though no one's
attacked them? Plenty of manufacturers make a US version to comply with
the (valid) safety measures which make products more expensive as well
as with the additional costs of protecting themselves from lawsuits and
problems. Then they create a different version for the rest of the
world, without those added features and costs. Sometimes that's good...
and sometimes they just keep selling asbestos, or DDT, or whatever, to
the rest of the world until their inventory runs out or their product
becomes obsolete.

Some examples of the kind of lawsuits that bother me (many thousands
more are available on the news all the time) are copied below. Note that
the court system doesn't reward the idiots all the time; I'll say again
that I didn't criticize the US legal system. But the tort system in
particular isn't working right, and there *are* way too many frivolous
lawsuits filed just to try to make a fast buck and aided by a lawyer who
charges 40% contingency fees hoping to make a fast buck as well.

--
Rodolfo J. Paiz
rpaiz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:rpaiz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

=========================================================

February 9-11 -- Litigators vs. standardized tests, I: the right to
conceal.   "In a major victory for disability rights groups, the
Educational Testing Service announced yesterday that on many of its
standardized exams it would stop flagging the results of students with
physical or learning disabilities who receive special accommodations,
like extra time, for the tests."  Disability rights advocates had sued
ETS arguing that it was violating antidiscrimination law by letting
university admissions departments and other downstream users know that a
test had been taken with extra time or other accommodations.  "The real
winners aren't the physically handicapped," observes Virginia Postrel
(Feb. 8). "They're academically disabled people who know how to work the
legal system."

Upwards of ninety percent of accommodations are demanded by students
asserting learning disability or attention deficit, and extra time is
typically among the demands; figures from California and elsewhere
indicate that affluent students are much more likely to assert such
disabilities than are students from modest backgrounds.  (Tamar Lewin,
"Disabled Win Halt to Notations of Special Arrangements on Tests", New
York Times, Feb. 8)(reg) (more).

http://www.vpostrel.com/

February 9-11 -- Litigators vs. standardized tests, II: who needs sharp
cops?   "Last May, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the
Justice Department to pay Torrance, Calif., $1.7 million in attorneys'
fees for a police bias suit the trial court had called 'frivolous and
unreasonable.'

The alleged police wrongdoing? They screened for reading and writing
skills (albeit at a ninth-grade level) in hiring exams. Such tests,
argued Justice, have a disparate impact on minorities and have no
legitimate job purpose. ... But as the court recognized, analytic skills

are essential to policing.  Officers must digest written material,
understand complex procedural laws, and produce clear reports for use in
court.

"Despite its defeat in Torrance, Justice continued to threaten police
departments with litigation unless they replaced traditional hiring
exams with federally approved tests. These all but excise cognitive
questions in favor of true/false 'personality' measures such as: 'I
would like to be a race car driver,' or 'I would like to go to a party
every night if I could.' Such states as New York, New Jersey and
Missouri caved in.  Many jurisdictions have ceased cognitive testing
pre-emptively."  (Heather Mac Donald (Manhattan Institute), "Stop
Persecuting the Police", Wall Street Journal, Feb. 5 (online subscribers
only)).

February 9-11 -- "Victim is sued for support".   "A woman convicted of
shooting her estranged husband in the head, and who served almost two
years in jail for her crime, is going to court to get spousal support
from the man she nearly killed.  And there is a very good chance she'll
get it, according to several family law practitioners."  That Christine
Alexander attempted to murder her husband David "may be a moot point
when determining support, since Canada's Divorce Act is 'no fault' and
does not take prior conduct into consideration. Nor is there any statute
of limitations for filing a claim. 'Her conduct isn't admissible under
the Divorce Act,' Toronto family lawyer Philip Epstein said.
'Technically speaking, the fact that she shot him in the face doesn't
bar her from a support case.''" (Martin Patriquin, Toronto Star, Jan.
23).